Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 15. (Read 157135 times)

Soft-fork segwit is (unless you were closely watching Dr. Backamoto's extension block proposal) such an unexpected and refreshingly elegant optimal solution (IE pleasing to both 'sides') it doubtless grinds Gavinistas' gears that Evil BlockSchemeNorthCorea agent provocateur Lukejr was the primary author.

I predict the Gavinista Jihad against segwit will be just as successful as the one against OP_CLTV.  That is, not at all.

A non-Segwit node can always validate transactions that are relevant to them. They do not validate the witness portion of Segwit transactions. They also do not generate Segwit addresses, nor do they participate in Segwit transactions. What you're talking about is moot.

The only real issue there is partitioning risk in the bootstrapping phase -- since Segwit nodes can't bootstrap from non-Segwit nodes. The solution for this (dropping non Segwit peers for Segwit peers in outgoing connections) has already been coded and merged.

bitcoin runs on a raspberry pi.. with the new libsecp256k1 it makes validating alot faster, so that means 2mb is no problem. especially on standard computers that are less then 10 years old (basic majority) and still ok for older computers and the said raspberry Pi.. but hey, Lauda thinks everyone should stick to Pi or jump to massive servers.. he cannot see the normal home computer category in the middle

the only time that linear vs quadratic becomes a noticeable problem is not really today.. but when LN becomes a thing. when they will be throwing out LARGE settlement transactions.

the linear vs quadratic debate is not about normal user transactions.. but about preventing a bottleneck to allow LN to happen smoothly. in the future.
i feel sorry when people think its their right to try dissing bitcoin to try to sway people to think all these new features are needed to move people onto sidechains and second layer solutions which wont be as secure or distributed.

Oh - we're gonna play _that_ game? OK - you first:


Oh hell with it - I'll answer first, though it really be your turn. Better - I'll answer in the form of a question...

And how is kumquats not hairbrushes?

In no sane set of definitions for 'bigger blocks' and 'centralization' are they equivalent. English much?

Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.

Now here's a question for you -


As:
a) you think SegWit is The One True Way;
b) you cede that SegWit requires more resources of a fully-validating node than the status quo to represent each transaction; and
c) you seem to value centralization very highly;
then:
is your true goal to 'decentralize' by reducing transaction count to zero?


Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.

I'm thinking KNC was the big short that was holding back the market ... and they just blew $2million that finally bankrupted them. Last roll of the dice at the casino.

i must admit...
gavin has lost some credibility.
but he's quite capable as a dev.
sometimes i feel like only core devs agree with delaying block size increases.
theres alot of sites that implement custom wallets they know bitcoin code backwards and forwards ( fuck they wrote their own impl) like the bitfinex guys they have a rock solid wallet impl.
i think if you excule core devs, the rough consensus is that segwit all good, and 2MB blocks probably isnt a bad idea... they like both... i like both! we all like both....

That's an odd question. "For the same set of transactions" suggests that OP_SEGWIT is not relevant here. Segwit transactions are not "the same set of transactions" as non-Segwit transactions.

But I acknowledge what you're getting at -- outputs. Technically, by pulling the witness out, a 1MB block becomes 500kB, as far as the byte counter in the consensus code is concerned. If you are suggesting that Segwit transactions might technically be bigger by a few bytes, you'd be right. However, Schnorr signatures (Segwit-required) alone will not only negate that, but will significantly reduce transaction size.

If, in regards to Segwit's [flex] block size increase, you're asking whether more data = more data, then yes. More data = more data. To which I would ask, what point are you trying to make? You deleted the portion of my quote that explains the relevant issue:


Um, what did you think "Peer-to-Peer" referred to in "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System?" Feel free to google "peer-to-peer":

https://www.google.com/search?q=Peer-to-Peer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Indeed. Peer-to-peer is by definition decentralized. Removing financial institutions from transactions means removing centralized third parties. It looks foolish on you to argue that decentralization doesn't matter in regards to bitcoin, given that it was its stated raison d'etre. To suggest that decentralization matters not means that bitcoin need not be P2P.


What are you babbling about? I'm contributing all the bandwidth I can for nothing in return. Big blockers suggest that we increase capacity simply to keep transactions cheap or free for users. That means externalizing the cost of transactions away from users (who get cheap fees) and forcing them onto node operators (who need to propagate them to all connections). I'm happy to pay more for transaction fees -- transaction relaying and validation is not free; the IC3 paper put it at $1-6 per confirmed transaction. I'm not happy to endlessly give up more and more bandwidth because people don't want to pay to push transactions. I don't have an option to access more bandwidth from my residence, so those externalized costs would just force me off the network eventually, all else equal.

I don't expect anything for free. I contribute my bandwidth partially out of security and partially out of altruism. You seem to think I should pay for users to transact for free or extremely cheap, forever, with no regard for the actual cost of validating/relaying transactions, nor UTXO set cost -- people who refuse to contribute to bitcoin's security. No thanks. I'm happy to see those people get their transactions stuck and/or dropped from mempool if they refuse to wise up. This isn't a fucking charity. Bitcoin isn't a public service for users to transact for free -- it is an incentive-based economy.

No. The market rallied because a false promise to deliver thousands of coins at a loss got liquidated on a settlement date.

REKKING INTENSIFIES

Well you didn't answer my question.
It doesn't really matter how bad SegWit is. What you advocate is far worse.

SegWit isn't perfect but at least it's opt in. It's not forced on anyone.

There is no such thing as "big blockers" and "small blockers" - there is merely the fact that bitcoin is in its current position because proposals such as Seg wit have been overwhelmingly accepted as the generally correct way forward at this point in time in bitcoin's development while XT/Classic have failed to muster sufficient support because they were unable to persuade in terms of evidence and/or logic. 

Accordingly, it seems like it would be more productive to focus on developing, building and brainstorming regarding bitcoin's current projected path, rather than seeming to cry over spilt milk (for Lauda's cat)...   yeah, sure, increasing the blocksize limit is most likely not out of the picture, but it is not currently something that is as easy as folks like you and some of the other XT/Classic proponents seem to continue to distractingly rally around.. Quite likely it is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be that the current forward direction does not include something that you and some other minority whiners keep apparently butt-hurt screaming about.

Hahahahahaha...

Classic!!!!! (no pun intended)

So you also cede that for the same set of transactions, the Omnibus SegWit Changeset consumes more memory and more bandwidth than without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Excellent. Who's next?


Just no. Other than the fact that 'decentralization' is a nebulous concept (decentralization of what notwithstanding), the bitcoin whitepaper does not mention decentralization even once. It does use the term 'central authority'. Twice. Referring to a single minter of the currency. (hmm. funny. that's the 'of what') A role that non-mining nodes have absolutely no effect upon.

In fact, the goal, as explained in the first sentence, is "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. "


Cheese? Who's in the Free Shit Army^TM now?

Nothing wrong with miners joining up with antpool, if that's what they believe is the best thing to do, but in reality they are not going to do it because they are not that dumb. 

This XT/classic bullshit has played out for long enough that even people who were giving the benefit of the doubt to Gavin and some of the other disingenuous folks, have kind of figured out that the underlying goal was not really to fix any real technical problem, and therefore there is a fair presumption of disingenuousness and even evil coming from that camp.. and a large number of the miners (who are invested in the success of bitcoin) are not going to fuck up their livelihood for some fanciful chasing of ghosts that don't in fact exist.

Huh? Its stated goal is fixing transaction malleability. The stated goal of bitcoin is decentralization -- therefore any and all changes should be viewed in that context.

That's why it's so important that Segwit is opt-in (and backwards compatible), at a time when many node operators (including myself) are already near the max of upload bandwidth they can contribute. Big ups to Core for maxuploadtarget and blocksonly to help us contribute the maximum possible without interfering with other bandwidth-heavy activities (gaming, streaming, torrents, video-conferencing, etc).

So you cede that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands. Excellent. First Lauda, now forevernoob. Who else?

You apparently missed the point then. There was no comparison between Gavin and Nazis. Read the accompanying quote and do a little research. That quote (and image, based on his reference to wearing star patches) suggests that Gavin will kneel before, and will do anything to appease, the state.