Bitcoin Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY&feature=youtu.be&t=300

That was it. If anyone is supporting Bu/anti-segwit agenda, I don't know what to tell you.

It was clear how Roger Ver is simply not able to form coherent arguments, he is too emotional. Johnny was articulate, calm and collected.

And Johnny isn't even one of main coders. I would like to see Gmaxwell debating on those streams, see if they can keep up to the debate outside of computer screen trolling.

Tiresome, both of them. The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains. :)

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

Roger Ver is silly and rude. He does not understand how to scale Bitcoin 1000000x...

History is made via discussion. If we let the trolls win bitcoin will be ruined. I hope BU ends up just like XT and Classic. If a hard fork happens, I hope it is not a disaster like ETH/ETC, that would kill all network effect.

segwit does not fix malleability.
segwit does not fix quadratics

segwit just disarms those who choose to move their funds over to segwit keys.. that is all. it still does not fix the issues across the network or across the blocks.  because sigop spammers and malleated double spenders CAN and will continue to use native keys. meaning problem not solved

please take more time understanding bitcoin and less time defending humans paid by blockstream.
after all in a few years the humans will move to different projects but bitcoin wil remain. so care more about bitcoin not the temporary humans

in short, if you have spent more time researching a humans linked-in employment history and wiki edits of their career, rather than reading or researching code. you have only failed yourselves

I thought they both did a good job and were able to articulate their positions well.  I think the way forward lands somewhere in the middle and the solution needs to consider miners, users, and developers.

There were 2 things that shocked me about the chat...  Roger saying that not spending BTC gives it it's value, and Johnny saying that he only uses Bitcoin once a month.

anything can be a currency. even cigarettes in a prison.

its top of the umbrella of financial terms.
below the umbrella are a multitude of subsets/categories.

money being one of those sub categories.
if you cannot spend it and its not recognised by a community or certain populous, then its not "money".

---

bitcoin was, is and will always be an asset currency
but the "money" subcategory becomes iffy if bitcoins UTILITY becomes dampened/stalled/halted/prohibited/functionless

I didn't watch it.  I wasn't under the impression that Roger is a technical guy.

I trust the expertise of people like Gavin and Peter Rizun who are advocating
for BU and also because it makes sense to me and is extremely simple.

I actually came up with the same idea on my own before BU existed that
"we should let the miners decide" and that the blocksize  shouldn't
be part of the consensus rules.  If you search the forum you might
find that thread.
 
I trust blockstream about as far as I can throw them.
 

part one of the video (tony veys) is not a programmer nor much of a holder.
part two of the video (johny, linked above) only has one commit and again isnt much of a holder/spender

i think both videos lacked anyone that could satisfactorily defend blockstream/core, or where those blockstream defenders are actually personally highly involved with bitcoin.

but hey thats just the social drama of peoples C.V not really the context of their opinions. which the context of which team is actually thinking about actually fixing issues.. BU wins.

segwit is an empty gesture that results in just centralising the network with its upstream nodes but still leave bitcoin unfixed.
(malicious people will continue using native nodes and manually copying/pasting segwit tx's to native nodes to open new attack vectors that core have opened up if segwit activates)

Blocklimits are useless, segwit is useful. Get rid of blocksize limit and implement segwit. Easy

If we got rid of the blocksize limit, what would be the benefit of segwit?

I never knew about attack blocks. Great Video thank you for posting pereira4!

I support segwit/Lighting again. Its the best way to move forward. I'm going to upgrade my client tonight.

Core needs a PR department.

lol
now learn about orphans and consensus.

attack blocks happen most days for the last 8 years.. they are dealt with by the mechanism that has always existed

Now, I am not a big Roger Ver fan but I think we should stop this smack talk from both sides, because it is not constructive to finding a solution in the long run. We clearly have two groups forming now and this is not healthy, because in the end only one side can win this argument and this will be decided by the miners.

Roger believed in Bitcoin, when Bitcoin was still relatively small and he pushed capital through the network to keep it alive, when other people abandoned the idea. Let's give credit, where credit is due and acknowledge his contribution. Yes, he has his reasons for doing what he is doing and we should respect everyone's stance or opinion on a subject and debate that in a civilized manner.

That s the thing. Think big and do all we can and let the market decide what is useful and safe.

This is again part of some fear and smear campain we see these days

HF: Evil (pls ignore or bann things we could learn from alts like Monero or ETH = top alts with HFs...)

Orphaning : Attack ( pls ignore again that bitcoin runs with that for 8 years and alts like ETH have made use of the orphanes = uncles)

Pls let rain some brain!

We don't need bigger blocks nor Segregated Witness, bitcoin is great as it is, price is at an all time high and people continue to use it.

There's already a 'bitcoin network' with bigger blocks and soon may have Segregated Witness active, it's called litecoin, if there was really a need for bigger blocks or more transactions we would see a rise in litecoin use, that's not happening.

Scaling is a complex topic. It's not something that can be solved using simple solutions. Of course a simple solution can work, but it's almost always not the long term one.

Take a piece of software (serving something to end users) running on a server utilizing 80% of the system's resources constantly. In order to scale that you'd either have to increase system resources or you'd need to optimize the software.

If the only thing you do is increase the hardware capacity of the machine, you're going to run into the same issue again. When, just depends on how big you've made the machine. This also means that your costs go up every time you put new users on board.

However, if you decide to optimize the software instead, it becomes more complex but your resulting scaling solution will look very different. For instance, I've worked on a server that was running a golang service using around 75% CPU power in peak times. By re-writing, benchmarking and pruning the code, we got that down to around 20% under peak load. Which is massive. The other issue we solved was that our resource usage no longer looked like a linear graph depending on how busy the server was, but would fluctuate between 10% and 20%. Instead of climbing from 10% to 75% under max load.

Segwit vs big blocks is the same. If we're just going to throw big blocks at the blockchain, we don't solve the problem long term (do the maths to see how big blocks would need to be to compete with Visa) and open ourselves up to attacks on the network (which Johnny describes in the video). Scaling via Segwit will gives us far better long term benefits as well as much better long term scaling solutions which allow us to think in a exponentially in terms of the number of transactions processed vs in a linear manner.

We do not need segwit what we need is bigger blocks. Segwit will not be adopted and will never reach the 95% of consensus from the overall population of miners. We need to increase the blocksize to maintain the status of bitcoin as decentralized. If we adopt segwit and they will move for Lightning Network to make a move in bitcoin decentralization will die.

1. stop using the failed doomsday of VISA by midnight.. we are not going to reach 1billion users by midnight. so stop thinking bitcoin need to suddenly turn into visa overnight.(instead think natural long term growth)

2. compared to 2009-2012 bitcoin has already made many efficiency efforts so if bitcoin could run fine on a raspberry Pi in say 2012.. guess what. it can run MORE THAN FINE now.

3. infact technology has moved on since 2012 and raspberry Pi3 is available. for instance if libsecp256k1 made efficiency saving of 5x.. and a raspberry Pi3 is 4x(single thread) - 10x(four thread) more efficient compared to the original Pi. that makes raspberry3 in 2017, 20-50x efficiency gain compared to code of bitcoin/tech of Pi of say 2012

4. here is the important part. putting a halt on any natural onchain growth using speculation of 30 years and turning it into a fear of tomorrow. is foolish.

5.how about people take their head off the pillow and allow REAL natural onchain growth(not fake gestures of pretend growth segwit cant honour). and have side services for the offchain stuff.. and over the years as bitcoin and computer tech evolve they naturally ofset each other where over time people need to use LN less and less because the blockchain grows NATURALLY over years.

6. again for emphasis stop using the failed doomsday of visa by midnight. and think rationally about real natural growth. halting natural growth with fears that it cant grow is not solving the problem. its just creating your self fulfilling prophecy by not allowing it to grow

7. segwit is broke. opens more attack vectors and only disarms innocent people who use segwit keys but doesnt disarm the network/block. people using native nodes/keys still can do things onchain. meaning segwit doesnt fix anything

Gavin, the aspiring-to-be benevolent dictator of bitcoin along with Mike Hernia:


http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/

Gavin, the idiot that got fooled by Craig "please I want to be satoshi pay attention to me" Wright.

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-regrets-role-satoshi-nakamoto-saga/

And Gavin, the guy that wanted to centralize the network with his ridiculous huge blocksize increases, comparing blocksizes to webpage sizes:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/636569665284775937

I could go on. But sorry, Gavin hasn't done anything remarkable in years, literally nothing worth talking about other than shitposting on reddit and tweeting trash.

Meanwhile Core devs have been working hard to keep making the software better, more robust, and innovating it.

BUllshit Team isn't able to keep up with Core's updates:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4fbQSYWQAAkKe8.jpg

And Roger Ver... what can we say about this guy at this point? Just an idiot that won the bitcoin lottery by being at the right moment holding the right asset. Bought a lambo and goes around giving lectures and thinks he knows shit about bitcoin, pathetic. He's a child arguing with people that are playing on another level. He not only can't code anything, but he doesn't understand game theory. He doesn't see beyond "fast transactions, cheap fees = we get rich now!!!".

Nick Szabo, Andreas and everyone:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/
http://bitcoinist.com/hashcash-antonopoulos-segwit-best/

Anyone supporting BU or being against segwit in 2017 is a disgrace for bitcoin.

But of course, franky1 the resident shitposter knows better, segwit is broken, BU is a way better idea, lets go BU so we can all get rich from people buying starbucks with onchain bitcoin transactions, yellow lamborghini incoming, thanks BU devs now we all can be Roger Ver.

lol typical script reciter
all you need is a post with the words 'conservative' and 'ad-hom' and ull have the blockstream triple golden ticket

you do know that andreas was talking about segwit before it was even in a form ready for bitcoin..
MAY 2016 (not october 2016.)

segwit doesnt disarm the network from sigop quadratics (just disarms the USERS that would move funds to segwit keys)
segwit doesnt disarm the network from tx malleation (just disarms the USERS that would move funds to segwit keys)
segwit doesnt give a true doubling of tx count

segwit only disarms people who use segwit keys. allowing spammers to continue spamming and also opens a new attack vector via 'anyonecanspnd'

gmaxwell, sipa and matt corallo tried to hide the attack vector by centralising segwit nodes as upstream filters to automate not allowing native nodes from getting segwit unconfirmed transactions. but.. manually copy&pasting is a short microsecond task meaning the new attack vector is not even 'fixed' either.

the end result is this
1. blocks will still contain mealleated tx's
2. blocks will still contain sigop quatratic bloated tx's
3. blocks that have messed with segwit tx's via 'anyonecanspend'
4. not everyone will move funds over to segwit keys and so dont expect anywhere near 2x.. expect atbest 1.3x

Do I disagree with Mike Hearn's authoritarian rhetroic?  Absolutely.

That's why it was so sad and shocking to see he was making more
sense than Greg Maxwell and his merry band of stonewalling core devs.

Let me seriously ask you a few questions:

Do you understand that blockstream/core wants to force essentially everyone off the main
chain?

Do you understand this would turn Bitcoin into a settlement network instead of the digital cash
system it is today?

Do you understand this represents a centralization threat that is arguably more dangerous
than it being costly to run a full node?

SegWit offers a far better scaling solution in the long term. Aside from an immediate bump to ~1.7/2MB block size increase. After that comes lightening network, schnorr signatures, mimble wimble and tumble bit which each add their own increase in capacity. Just increasing the block size without Seg Wit is pointless and a waste of money. Bitcoin Unlimited, for instance, even has the abilty to just kill Bitcoin by being in a constant flux and disagreement over what is the main chain and what is a valid and invalid block. It becomes chaos because you just never know if something that got confirmed will stay confirmed, which breaks Bitcoin.

1. I'm using it to illustrate a point. I could've used any service for that. If you're missing the point, I suggest you re-read the sentence or ask me if you didn't understand.

2. See point 1.

3. I don't understand how this relates. Please elaborate.

4. Nobody is putting a halt on on chain growth. We're just suggesting a better solution.

5. I think you misunderstand how SegWit and how efficient scaling works. At least that is apparent from this sentence.

6. Real natural growth is complex and is not solved by short sighted knee jerk reactions to a scenario.

7. Please provide sources on those attack vectors and how it "disarms innocent people". This kind of FUD is really dangerous. I think you need a refresher on how SegWit works.

How is it a waste of money?


The only way that could happen is for the network to have a nearly exact 50/50 split of mining power supporting two distinct blocksizes, and for this exact split to sustain itself
over a period of a time, which is virtually impossible.

In any other situation, the longest chain with the most work done will continue to be accepted, with occasional orphaning and reorgs, as it has always done.

unbiased clarity


NO IT DOES NOT
when segwit 'activates' NOTHING scalable changes..
WEEKS after activation a new release is made public that includes segwit key wallets.
scaling then ONLY OCCURS IF people move funds to segwit keys and then move funds between segwit keys.

meaning if 1% of users use segwit keys expect only a maximum "BUMP" of 1.01mb
meaning if 100% of users use segwit keys expect only a maximum "BUMP" of ~2.1mb

do not expect 100% segwit key utility. and dont expect it to happen instantly at activation


lightning network can aggregate transactions and help. but again there are users that dont need, want and wont use LN. so dont expect LN or schnorr to be the cure.

also dont confuse lightning with segwit. they are 2 different things. lightning does NOT need segwit.

mimblewimble as a sidechain via LN service great. but not as a bitcoin mainnet onchain feature where it has control of EVERYONES privky to move their TX and mix the funds together onchain.. think long and hard about that risk of a mimble manager just grabbing your unspent to mix without your consent!!!
mimble should be offchain to be used by those that volunteer to hand their funds across to a mimble manager.

segwit doesnt disarm the network. it just disarms users who voluntarily choose to use segwit keys
meaning malicious people will continue using native keys and still sigop quadratic spamming and bloat spamming and malleating tx's
segwit does not fix the things it promises. its not needed and was 'oversold' 'over promised' and under delivers

Wrong, here is Andreas talking about the benefits of segwit in a very recent article:

https://medium.com/@aantonop/i-think-you-have-captured-an-important-point-f263828a0af#.tptfrx1fg

here is a recent tweet:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/821016551075639297

In any case, Andreas is irrelevant compared to Nick Szabo, and in any case, they are both for segwit. Sorry, your shitposting is ineffective.


Do you understand that in order for onchain transactions to scale anywhere notable for a global currency, the blocksize would be so huge that it would be a centralized mess of a network run by specialized "node runners" running the nodes instead of decentralized actors, thus rendering bitcoin an useless token for hipsters?

Afaik segit is prereq to mallaeability issue thus LN and schnorr sigs and thus is needed for future scaling of btc

LN is just a 2-in 2out tx
segwit isnt needed because malleability can be sorted simply by 'bob' not signing if 'alice' malleated. and alice wont sign if bob malleated

and they then wont sign the same tx again unmalleated where funds end up elsewhere.
in short malleation is removed simply by needing a second pair of eyes looking at a tx before signing.. which is a fundemental feature of LN. thus malleation is solved just by being done through a multisig

Im not against some layered solutions in addition to main chain scaling as long as its not rammed down our throats like core is doing.  Let miners, users, and the free market decide.  When network propagation issues becomes a real concern, they will simultaneously become a competitive hinderance.

typical "gigabyts by midnight" scare story..

be rational
NATURAL GROWTH OVER YEARS/DECADES where nodes announce what they are capable of and pools only make blocks to what nodes can cope with. other wise nodes simply orphan the block thats too excessive...
over time nodes will cope with more because technology moves forward. growing naturally without the stupid "servers by midnight" fake doomsdays

we are not in the days of computers having a 4gb max hard drive (1990's) or internet being 56k... things have moved on.
and will move on.

by the time we get to "visa populous" (by the way we wont get visa populous by midnight, it takes time for user adoption) tech will grow.

EG
rasperry Pi3 and current bitcoin efficiency gains allow a raspberry pi3 to handle 20-50x more bitcoin capability than older stats of older tch worries in 2012.

inshort even CORE.. yes your kings know that bitcoin is 8mb safe. but are happy with 4mb bloat.
the issue is core dont want to expand the REAL native block of 1mb NOT because it then risks data loss,  network issues.. but risks the desire of using a LN hub for blockstream to get some cash back in from fee's to repay their VC's.

PS LN has a niche, for certain user types, and should exist as a VOLUNTARY side service for those niches. but should not be seen as the sole solution to scaling. because LN has limitations and issues which not everyone will need to use LN for.

"Segwit prevents third-party and scriptSig malleability by allowing Bitcoin users to move the malleable parts of the transaction into the transaction witness, and segregating that witness so that changes to the witness does not affect calculation of the txid."

So this is bs? LN whitepaper says itself that it cannot be implemented without bip62 or something  like segwit to solve the issue

Yeah, because a bunch of lying Bitcoin trolls just keep turning up to all the Bitcoin Unlimited forums, trying to force their system onto the BU system, which was working fine withou.... oh no, hang on, BU based forums are dead, no-one from Bitcoin itself actually cares, and Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't exist until it forks. ::)

imagine this

alice makes a tx.. and malleates it..
bob looks at alices signature and see's something doesnt look right compared to what bob is signing. .. bob doesnt sign
thus transaction cant be added to a block and alice cant do anything.
LN works without segwit, due to mutually assured destruction. funds cannot move unless both agree not to cause issues. if one causes issues it destroys their own effort because the other side recognises the attack.

---

yes segwit is another way and solves things in a different way. but its just not needed. people can make safe LN contracts right now
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that are not needed.
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that do not fix the network and only disarm those that use segwit keys (not those using native keys). meaning the problems inside the network/blocks will still occur because malicious people will just use native keys and continue doing their malicious stuff

all segwit will permanently cause is that segwit nodes being UPSTREAM filter nodes, selectively filtering down what it desires to non blockstream nodes. in essence centralised gatekeepers of the network.
(hint: FIBRE)

Bob wouldnt deal with alice because shes using p2sh not p2wsh he can opt out. Also things like schnorr signatures will be next after segwit goes live

schnorr is something else.
schnorr could be added as part of a proper organised hard CONSENSUS event. again schnorr isnt dependant on and only implementaable due to the soft segwit event.

My favorite moment is when Johnny patiently explains to Roger that "his mistake, in technical parlance, is called a layer violation."

Ouch!  Better put some ice on that Roger (you filthy casual).   :D

The current proposal for Schnorr Signatures relies on script versioning, a feature which would be introduced by SegWit

and could be introduced as part of a proper hard consensus

That is irrelevant because thats not what this proposal is for. A hardfork is not on cards "yet". LN plus schnorr plus segwit will give us another year or 2 to figure out if we really need a hf

1. segwit DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUES
it only disarms people who voluntarily use segwit keys... its like having a gun problem and then only taking the guns away from those who voluntarily walk into a police station and hand their guns in..

2. a hard consensus was on the cards. mentioned in 2015 that by summer 2017 the hard consensus will be rolling.. but blockstream paid coders backtracked their commitment early 2016 breaking the roundtable commitment. plus segwit doesnt solve the issues it promises. segwit is an empty gesture. not a 100% promise

3. 2016 has been a waste of a year for a feature that wont meet expectations.

Segwit gives an immediate path which is the least resistant path in terms of consensus by core devs that it will provide maximum utility with considerabily lower complexity than a full hf analysis. It is an optin mechanism that with incentives lays out the foundation for further scaling

LN can work without segwit. segwit it doesnt lay out foundations for scaling.
(segwit is just 'sold' as a needed thing as a way to tempt people to push it, they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for any small excuse they can to undersell its limitations and oversell its half promises. while pretending it also does things it cant do. but people have run scenarios and seen it never meets expectations)

secondly you cannot segwit a segwit

thirdly it does not stop native key functionality. so it doesnt fix problems. infact it introduces new problems.

please spend  abit of time reading beyond the 'elevator speach' of segwit. and read the code or read the full documentation. and dont let ur eyes glaze over the issues. be concerned about the issues. in short. read the small print

If it can work without segwit they would have added it or someonr would have done it on an altcoin already but segwit was required. The whitepaper is lying then you saying and you know better than the rest of the world

LN is complicated to code... that is why it hasnt been done yet.  They are working on it.

It is completely false to say "they would have added it" -- heck 8mb or even 2mb would have helped things and THEY didn't do it -- not because it was difficult but because it didn't serve their agenda.. i mean 'roadmap'.   

segwits initial promise was to fix issues...... result it cant. it just disarms the voluntary (ur words 'opt-in') key users. not the entire network
they then said 'wait its a tx count boost' but thats only if significan use of the keys. not an instant boost at activation.. result not gonna reach expectation
next they saying look it can add schnorr. and other things.. but..
but schnorr and other things requires future soft fork events anyway.. so just wait for schnorr code to be ready and do the soft fork then.. or dare i say it hard consensus then..

this segwit soft gesture is not a stepping stone. its just an empty promise to hide the ability blockstream want to be upstream centralised filters for the network.

all other things like schnorr, and other things can be implemented without segwit in many different ways. soft or hard. (pool or node&pool)

I fully believe this, but could you please explain in more detail about this? 

for an old node to get blockdata aftr activation it needs to connct to a segwit node because the segwit node needs to filter it to the native node.
gmaxwell calls it a upstream filter.

thats where FIBRE was invented to ring fense the pools with segwit nodes.
here it is explained in segwits own user guide
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

the even have an image
https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg
link of image to show its not a reddit propaganda creation https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg

---

also old nodes cannot sync TO new nodes.
pruned nodes cannot sync to ANY nodes
no witness new nodes cannot sync to full archival new nodes

making the downstream nodes a mess/hodgpodge of nodes that are not fully part of the network and relient on the upstream nodes filtering them down the data

Well, all that is basically saying is after segwit would be activated, nodes need to play ball with segwit...
but what i'm asking is how is blockstream itself being a filter (as opposed to segwit nodes)

FIBRE

---

Fibre coded by Matt corallo and released with bitcoin(segwit) core.
matt was an employee of blockstream at the time f helping them make FIBRE (secretly still is but as a 'technical advisor')

segwit coded mainly by sipa and released with bitcoin core.
sipa is an employee of blockstream

LN coded by rusty russell and released under blockstreams github https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
rusty russell is an employee of blockstream

With this we go back to the beginning: How are we going to scale Bitcoin (further)?


So... Let's just say "screw it" and have no limit? That's not feasible... At least not immediately feasible.


Bitcoin is not great as it is. If it was then 90% of this forum would be mad people discussing ways to correct something that's working perfectly well.

People use Bitcoin because, well... What other options are there really? Litecoin isn't as widely used for payments/transacting, not even in a remote way...


Correct. That's exactly why we need both things to happen: more "hardware" and better "software".

sounds like its just a relay network that is optional.   Doesn't appear to be part of the data chain you are talking about.

please forget the 20 second elevator sales pitches that have lead many to kiss blockstream ass, and go look at the fine details.
think about the net work topology. how blockstreams creations are at the UPSTREAM (closest to pools) and how the data filters down to the hodge podge of nodes that are down stream that are not
full archival 100% validation 100% relay nodes.

Not sure what pitches those are.   I honestly have no idea why people worship blockstream, other than that people like Greg and Adam used to
do good things for Bitcoin in the past.

I'm not too worried about downstream nodes.

My big beef with Blockstream's approach is simply forcing people off the main chain, and pushing for
layers, which opens up pandora's box.  For example, let's say they came out with LN 1.0 which was
somehow proven to be ideal: permissionless, anonymous, shenanigan-free, etc.  What stops them from forcing
(or deceiving) the network to upgrade to LN 2.0 which is not,  especially since they remain entrenched
as the controllers of the code?

  

what if i told you LN is buggy  (remember the one-use address issues where signing a tx using the same key multiple times could reveal said privkey)
what if i told you CLTV if you read what it does is AFTER the close channel transaction confirms. funds are unavailable to spend and in a maturity bubble like blockreward 100confirm (real world feel of the 3-5day bank delay spending of funds)
what if i told you CSV if you read what it does is AFTER the close channel transaction confirms. while maturing. the other party(cosigner) can revoke the payment to themselves(real world feel of paypal/credit card chargebacks)

LN is not intended for everyone. LN is intented for people that spend micro amounts multiple times a day. (faucet raiders) and thats its niche.
LN wont see satisfaction from regular users that just want to spend once or twice a month to pay rent or take a salary

---

what if i told you its not permissionless.. because you cant simply send funds to a person. you need the person your in contract with to authorise (remember its a multisig)
and if using hops. you need each hop to AGREE(permission) to use them as a hop.
and if its a hub you need the hub to agree(permission)

its then no longer just peer to peer permissionless, but needing other people to sign off on YOUR funds

Schnorr sig solves your first issue.. id like to see a technical writeup of your claims because they undermine the whole experiment and im skeptical unless you have some math or code to show

Johnny is a legend.

https://twitter.com/ICOcountdown/status/838199628428414976

#dontforkbitcoin

Don't we all. ;)

The truth of it is not all of us are dark market users so there is really no need to spend Bitcoin. If ever we want to buy something online, credit cards are easier and gives us more choices of products to buy. So what happens is a big percentage of "Bitcoiners" only hold their coins waiting for it to "go to the moon".

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki#freezing-funds
note the blue below FROZEN IN UTXO DIRECTLY ON THE BLOCKCHAIN = confirmed TX froze out from being spent(meaning its not about holding unconfirmed in mempool for X.. but getting confirmed but THEN unspendable for X


https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki#retroactive-invalidation
note the purple "delayed" below is referring to CLTV

Johnny was amazing in this but Trace Mayer also managed to land a devastating blow in the single comment he made to Roger. Roger was essentially proposing a trust based system which prompted Trace to ask 'in that case why have a blockchain at all'.