Topic: Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise (Read 11821 times)

^ im laughing

he pretends to prevent cancer, as if he is a knight in shining armour.. yet supports the group that is growing cancer cells from within..

secondly apart from reading reddit scripts he has no idea what the truth is. he cant even understand the basics such as consensus.
the only statement that is accurate is he is here to gather more bitcoin (by scamming people into handing over their wallet.dats so he can grab a cut of peoples funds just to give them back their funds when peoples bitcoin-core clients crash. and yes he wont report the issue/error because he doesnt want to admit that core does have issues. purely so he can milk people of their funds when core crashes

message to lauda.
how about go to your altcoin/services topic and spam your sig campaigns there. if you want to be involved in bitcoin. atleast learn what bitcoin is. if you think bitcoin belongs only to core and that they are the only party you want deciding the future.. you have failed the fundamental basics

lessons to learn before summer 2018
1. consensus
2. diversity
3. decentralisation
4. c++

please learn those 4 things, because everyone can agree they will help you understand bitcoin

He's a little slow between the ears, he's always been that way.

It looks like Segwit might be the real "joke" around here.

I feel like a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders when the BCC project launched successfully.

Probably. I mean, seeing as BitcoinABC is a completely separate project, and does not implement EC. Accordingly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Frankly, I question whether you know what you are talking about.


If the Bitcoin Cash movement were 'stalling segwit for random nontechnical reasons', you might have a point. However, the Bitcoin Cash movement merely have chosen a different route forward than the so-called 'core scaling roadmap'. For solid reasons. Some technical and some nontechnical. If you can't accept that there are considerations important to Bitcoin other then technical -- economic reasons would be an obvious example -- then you don't understand the gift that Satoshi has given to humanity. this is a myopia you seem to share with many in the cripplecoin community.

I m here to confront you and the new bees with constructive critical thinking, way better than your blind sunglass shills for SplitWait.

So go ahead and teach us and the newbees how consensus works and how miners get into the boat?

 And why core failed here so dramatically and has led miners to collude?

How is NYA ?

Why was it needed?

What / who will breake it?

Still want change PoW?

I am here to prevent the cancerous, paid shills to mislead newbies and newcommers with fake information (and gather more, real, Bitcoin of course , among other things). More specifically, to prevent the spread of the scams such as XT, Classic, BU, ABC, BCash, w/e. If you do not support the real Bitcoin, why are you here then?

Ok. So you attest that the miners do bullshit.

Why are you here then? Trolling only?

Give up.

Absolute bullshit. Stalling Segwit for random, non technical reasons, is not rational. Then again, who knows who is controlling Ver and Jihan.

The miners have just done a standard risk/ reward analysis and have acted very rational.

They have assumed that miners would act rationally at all times, which isn't the case. Rusty apologized for his flawed idea of BIP 9 IIRC. Anyhow, consensus has been reached on Segwit and it is happening for sure. Whatever the Bitcoin Core developers have provided is by far superior to any other alternatives. Do I have to remind you why they kept using BU and went with "EC" instead and then another rename to ABC?

Most of core devs also assumed some super techy stuff will just do as always and lead to great consensus.

This 'great' consensus we can watch now...

Are you talking about the 2 MB, flag day fork, from Segwit2x?

Most of the Bitcoin Core contributors think that the idea is a joke. There is practically zero community support for that hard fork. Even the "big blockers" abandoned Segwit2x and run their own altcoin with an increase block size now. I think that fork in November can not, and will not happen. It is too fast, and too soon.

What are the dangers of the 2mb hard fork part of this whole seq witness consensus?

Can core or others block this....or is it a done deal?

curious....just when I think it is unlikely to go "pear shaped' ..it not only goes 'pear shaped' it rolls over in the asic seas......floods and sinks

Welcome to my world..why I'm asking

anyway thoughts ..or am I fretting over nothing?

Transaction Business is Miner Business (per design)

Miners are securing your bitcoin over 8 years now and may include (or not) your specific tx - on-chain.
They are the final bottleneck of that control and get payed for to do so.

If you add some other boy's business on top and try to work against miners (orthogonal competition) than miners might skip these other's txs  (if they can detect)  and this even despite they provide a very high fee (because human rational - safe miner's reputation of on-chain business).

I do not see the orgcoin scale with that 2nd layer (orthogonal) model fast (safety needs to be shown for some years) and with same security (miners have reason to attack).

But some devs might collude with these other boy's business and are trapped.

Lightning and Segwit are great peace of technologies. But we also need to be very open about potential future issues:
1. Lightning hub - can censor transactions, can enforce AML/KYC.
2. Lightning hub - If user launder his bitcoins or tokens through the hub, since hub provider is committing his bitcoins and the way payment channels are setup it might technically seems like node provider is also part of the money laundering scheme. So can companies provide this service without legal issues?
3. Lightning hub - it'll act just like a bank, so what is stopping banks or someone with deep pockets to start node, provide fees free service and vacuum up large number of direct channels. Bitcoin community(small number of people) might think this is a issue but you have to consider average user doesn't care so long they save money, because we are dealing with people who are willing to give all their personal information to get reward/shopping points and in the process getting tracked. This will also have impact on privacy minded people.

On chain scaling is also important even  with lightning network. We need to start looking at areas where this technology can have biggest impact. i.e developing countries. Now, can anyone explain how someone with $2.00 a day wage can afford $2.00 transaction fees? Internet and phones are getting even cheaper but it all comes down to affordability, if transaction cost is too height then no matter which technology is in use, poor people can't use it. Lightning nodes might not be accessible due to regulatory or other technical issue(e.g service down, censorship)

Segwit is temporary solution until blocks are full again and fees will go down just to rise again
Lightning will support offchain transaction but this will be hub and spoke model not decentralized. and it can be regulated/censored
2MB rise will not be backward compatible. but if Bitcoin cash can safely hardfork then there is no issue hard forking bitcoin with only one parameter change. On the positive side we can monitor bitcoin cash hardfork for few more months and learn from it. storage and bandwidth are relatively much cheaper when we compare 1MB 2010-2011 and 2MB 2017

Dev's need to control their egos and work together. No one is expert, we have allot of uncharted territory. Expert in certain field in the past doesn't automatically translate into expert in every field. We need to work together. Stop charter assassinating each others!! Scaling offchain and onchain both have pros and cons.

The miners amongst themselves.


Yeah? Watch UASF