Bitcoin Forum

Have you ever read the paper Bitcoin academy? If not, you are very very lucky. It's a big joke.

I couldn't read it all, I feel like they have spent more time to try to brainwash people, to say that Btrash is the real BTC. I felt an epileptic seizure coming I even started convulsing, so I had to stop and close the Tab.

I don't even remember reading something that wasn't bashing Bitcoin. In five minutes I did a better job than Bitcoin.com https://i.imgur.com/XfOGLoB.png

Going to find the contact page now to send it to them because I believe it is more trustworthy than what they posted

Everything from that site has an insane amount of bias towards their bcash garbage. If they felt their shitty fork version is the real Bitcoin, why is no one using it then? Because no one other than their own shills believe that.

They can't accept that their bcash garbage is an altcoin, where on top of that, it doesn't offer anything new or meaningful. In other words, bcash isn't any different than the other +1000 similar shitcoins.

If bcash didn't had Bitcoin in its name, and those behind it didn't had deep pockets to sustain its price, it would be a sub 0.01BTC coin by now, just like how BTG is slowly being dumped down to the bottom.

lol... oh boy, bias is one thing, boldly spreading misinformation another.

Right after the factually incorrect infographic in the very beginning you already face the next objectively false statement:


In which timeline is this the case? Or did Roger Ver hardfork the universe as well? Jesus...

What's next? "Roger Ver is the original and most popular Bitcoiner. He is loved by all types of hodlers in every community."?


I always assumed that claims about Bitcoin.com's propaganda were hyperbole, but oh man was I wrong.

Exactly!
I am going to add the domain to my blacklist used for parental control, Bitcoin.com is harmful.

There are a lot of shitcoins but a lot of them are better than Btrash. Just for the record Dogecoin, the "joke coin" has more transaction than Btrash. As an excuse they like to say, well it's only 5-6 months old. I told them well, you are the one bragging it's the bigger coin, so what...

They rarely have a valid argument. I mean, ok, the debate is open, but stop to tell me useless points give me some substance. I don't want to hear you telling me, Bitcoin core uses Bots, while you are the one using it. Don't tell me Bitcoin core is using the sockpuppets, while Btrash openly admits using it.
I even remember the case when Jamie Lee ( a Bitcoin.com writer I think) used his wrong account to tweet. He tried to delete it after but too late, someone archived it. And they spend the whole days on Twitter to do it

And while I am at it, me I don't know the name "Bitcoin core", I don't know who invented it, I only know Bitcoin. And Bitcoin is Bitcoin, no matter if people think it's a good or bad coin. We are not going to decide the name depending on the percentage of people liking it or not..
A lot of people like to say Bitcoin is bad but a lot of them copy (or try to copy) it. So I suppose it isn't as bad as they say...

And one of their problems is this: they can't admit they failed and can't admit Btrash is just an altcoin. They will try everything to keep faith in.
Look at @Bitcoin on Twitter, so desperate than he posts manipulated screenshots from Blockstream website with the hope to confuse people.
Use bots to comment his tweets (posting generic posts, like "great project sir"  sometimes I feel I am  on Bitcointalk)

Btrash should rather learn from other coins how to properly market their (useless) product. Because right now, they are going nowhere

though bcash is not used by merchants that say "we accept bitcoin"

bitcoin core cannot honestly say that they are the original either..
line for line of code bitcoin core is far from the original 2009-2014 codebase
and bitcoin cash does have more similarity

but from the point of view of "the original".. neither are.. the fork split and 2 different codebases of rules were activated
though bcash has more lines similar to the original 2009-2014 codebase.. NEITHER are the original

this is not about defending either. but to be realistic and to make people realise that bitcoin core. although 'distributed' is not decentralised
especially when pretty much every post above would secretly agree that if the code is not released by "team core"(centralised) then its not bitcoin

by even having the mindset that anything not core should be treated as an attack and as a future altcoin if it goes against the blockstream roadmap is an admission that bitcoin core is not decentralised.

again yes distributed.. but no to decentralised. there is a difference

you can argue all you like about how core is king and better and the monarchy of bitcoin.. but take 2 steps outside your own mindsets and realise what your actuall saying by suggesting that if any other team thats not involved with contributing to cores bips/roadmap/github should be treated as an attack

be honeet with yourself before defending core.
both core and bcash are not the original. the fork ensured that. which is the whole point of what a fork is.. NEW direction

while group A squabble and group B squabble. neither groups realised what was happening. they were both handing the reigns over to a centralised party because of "trust" "faith" "control"... all the things the bitcoin ethos did not need

the whole bandcamp argument was just smoke and mirrors to actually give a group control.
the whole treat unlimited as the enemy and then use the BScartels subsiduary Bloq to push unlimited out was under subdefuge of saying they are helping the community decide x1 or x2 was all part of the game

 what should have happened was the community refused to enter the camp debate and instead relied on network consensus to unite teams to a compromise. not avoid consensus to hand over control to a single team via altcoin creating

@franky1
Where have you been all this time? :)

Well, regarding your post, what about the evolution, isn't Bitcoin allowed to evolve? The Darwin theory can only be applied to what the person likes?
No. You don't call yourself a homo sapiens.

We can notice and have a need to change some things here and there, GNU/Linux (to compare) would not be what it is today without
the literally thousands of upgrade-forks
But one thing for sure, you don't see Lubuntu claiming to be the original Debian.

Again, Bitcoin is Bitcoin, no matter who is the dev. no matter who likes it or not. If people don't like Blockstream, then can say I don't like Bitcoin because of Blockstream. But can't say Btrash is the real Bitcoin because I don't like Blockstream

evolution. is different than man made mutation

for instance instead of going for the ban hammer/IP banning of nodes and altcoin creation.. if instead they actually used consensus properly where by the community agreed to a single set of rules.. yes a true compromise. of say 2mb base plus segwit.. and then all DIFFERENT teams stayed on the same network but then used the same rules.. then that is evolution..

but using BLOQ to misdirect peoples choices into not being a consensus but a split, under the pretense of bloq pretending to be on unlimited side while actually being paid by the same investors as blockstream.. was just politics of ruining bitcoins 2009-2014 ethos

bitcoin core is not the same bitcoin as 2009-2014. its not evolution. its man made and controlled mutation

now then. if a future team was to develop and go against the grain of blockstreams roadmap.. and instead of using consensus to find a compromise.. instead forced another altcoin creation event. then that is just advertising those that defend core are centralists who dont care about bitcoins ethos and only care about btc token profit (two different things)

By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing.



Bickering about which implementation is closer to the "original" vision is pointless.

Bitcoin is what the community decides it is. At one point in the future it may be a different fork by a different development team. Currently the majority of the community has decided that Bitcoin as implemented by the Bitcoin Core development team is the canonical protocol version.



I personally chose BTC over BCH as the canonical Bitcoin blockchain due to assessing its scaling approach as the more viable one. This has little to do with the development team behind it, although Bitcoin ABC's incompetence in some parts of the development process didn't bode well either -- at least in my book. Other members of the community may have different motivations, of course.

Please expand on what you mean by distributed vs decentralized in terms of software development.



Bitcoin is just a name. If an alt is viable, it will thrive long term, regardless of whether it's a Bitcoin hardfork, softfork or a different coin altogether.



Bitcoin's evolution worked out just as intended. The market decided. No need for trust, faith or control. Just permissionless currencies, competing on the free market. Nothing more, nothing less.


Regardless of where you stand in the blocksize debate and how Bitcoin should govern itself -- Many of the statements made in Bitcoin.com's Bitcoin Academy are simply factually incorrect. And that's what this thread is about.

@franky1

So, what about if, in future we see another team, looking to follow exactly Bitcoin's ethos back in 2009. What will you think?
"oh, now Bitcoin is the real Bitcoin".

It's like saying
My wife pisses me off, she is no longer my wife...

1 week later
She prepared my dinner, it's my wife again

So what is it about, it's to say, you have to believe in, no matter the up and downside happening with the time, it's called believing in a project
Like when you marry and it says "For Better or For Worse"

i stand on neither side of any camp. which was the funny part of many years.. those standing on cores side kept trying to pigeon hole me into "the other camp" .. to me. there should be no camps.. if anything needs to be decided consensus will decide..
but consensus was not used.

as for your first statement.
"By that logic the original Bitcoin ceased to exist as soon as the first people other than Satoshi started contributing."

no. because they were contributing.
funny part is the github now moderated by a single team is not the same codebase as satoshi's sourgeforge codebase. yep satoshi never used github.. but even though satoshi used sourceforge and others used github they all agreed and found compromises to work on the SAME RULES and evolve equally at the same time on the same network.

no altcoin was created because of indicision between the contributors back in satoshi's day. even when there were many codebase sources on many different platforms and many different languages.

but now that many deem only bitcoin core is the 'trusted' source of network protocol rule selection... thats all changed
as soon as the band camp aruments of 'if its not core its not bitcoin' started.. thats when decentralisation died

in my view.. there is no wife..
many girlfriends all agreeing to share the same bed and compromising on what direction is best for all those on the bed.
just remember. when you decide to marry, you are no longer free and on the open market. your then tied to  someone and start needing their permission if changes in the place you live need to be made

take LN.. its not permissionless.. its multisig. you need a counterparty to sign and agree to a payment arrangement.

I just got an idea

Creating a coin and call it Bitcoin core $BCC, just to disturb btrash, I wonder how will they call Bitcoin then

Bitcoin.com is trash. We know it. But idiots don't. It's funny on how they say bitcoin is not the real bitcoin but bitcoin cash is the real bitcoin. Read that line again. You'll find it stupid and dumb. Well because it is.
Oh boy I don't see why anyone who's familiar with crypto would believe that, cause no one really likes Roger ver. Take the lightning network node for example:
https://i.imgur.com/jdHYEgR.png
If you actually believe what's written on bitcoin.com's very famous paper Bitcoin Academy, well congratulations, you're a stupid fuck.

---

Oh you naughty.

theres already a group of core devotees wanting to call LN.... wait for it....  bitcoin 'cache' to disrupt bitcoin cash
afterall opening a channel is like putting funds into a vault(cache)..

i think it was kimdotcom that first 'coined'(pun) the phrase because he wanted to use LN for his megaupload, and the core fanboys took it a stage further

this mindset is not necessarily bad.
obviously not everyone is knowledgeable enough to know who is right and what solution is best so they have to follow someone and trust their plans. and who better than the team that has been developing bitcoin for years.
but also it is not good if everyone starts having this mindset and gives up educating themselves and thinking. and it is even worse when they try to shove it down other's throats. the second part is unfortunately what has been happening mainly last year.
i wouldn't go as far as calling it not-decentralized since this is mainly in social media like reddit for instance but this mindset should die if we want to see a better bitcoin. which means for example when you ask others why are you rejecting SegWit2x their answer should either be "i am not knowledgeable enough to answer" or they should give a logical technical answer.
i used this specific example because every time i read an argument about SegWit2x the heart of it all was "because core rejected it".

You cannot blame them since it is a marketing strategy made by them so that they can gain more holders and supporters. Their effort of replacing bitcoin did not bear fruit and that is why they will make plans and programs so that they can market their coin. If they will not do it then there will be no movement on their coin and it will mean no profit.

Given a large enough project, divisiveness will arise and not always be solvable within the same codebase.

Best case, this is how you get the plethora of alts exploring all kinds of aspects of cryptocurrencies or the variety of linux distros, feeding the need of different people and use cases.

Worst case, this is how you get drama and discord, such as happened during the blocksize debate and BCH vs BTC.

You obviously can't have both big and small blocks, so what BCH did when splitting off was the right thing. Obviously if enough people agree that bigger blocks are the superior scaling solution, BCH will eventually prevail. Just like ETH will overtake if its smart contracts and token economy turns out productive enough or XRP will overtake if people turn out to be idiots prefer centralized solutions after all.

In practice, the market is the decision maker. Be it in market cap or in adoption and usage levels. That's the only consensus that counts when it comes to self-governance in cryptocurrencies.

That being said, while Bitcoin Cash did the right thing by splitting off, what Bitcoin.com does is rather questionable.



Obviously you do, that's how trade works. I'm not sure how this makes LN any more permissioned -- in a meaningful way -- than on-chain transactions.

you mean obviously couldnt have "gigabyte blocks" and "segwit".. but then there was never actually a proposal for "gigabyte blocks" that was project fear designed by core..
however the network could handle segwitx2, which was a compromise that the community could agree on and did agree on in 2015, before alot of core members backtracked out of due to the roadmap.

thus the AVOIDANCE of using consensus and instead the employment of BLOQ to make an altcoin to throw all the x2 offtrack.

i think you need to look up what the consensus mechanism for bitcoins evolution actually is.. because it certainly is not altcoin creation.

consensus is if you can imagine a country.. about finding an agreement to change rules the community can agree on.(democracy) . yet what actual events happaned was more like deportation of those opposing a monarchy, and if you do your research it was not the opposition that decided to split. it was the monachys cousin(bloq) that arranged the deportation.

even the king of the monarchy realised that his opposition would refuse voluntary deportation

hense needing to use BLOQ to implement the deportation and avoid a democratic agreement, thus a monarchy wins by default by suddenly going from 30% at the poles to 95%


i dont need your signature to send you funds onchain. onchain is a PUSH method.. or more like a throw money at you method
LN is not a PUSH. its a handshake method.
time it seems that many need to do their research and realise just how much bitcoin has changed and will change that has gone against the ethos of bitcoin.
but hey i bet many wont because all they care about is FIAT profits.

so lets word it this way. if bitcoin loses tomuch of its original purpose(take scarcity: the idea of adding millisats which then expands sharable units to then make sharing units of bitcoin less scarce)
no one will want it, because it becomes no better than fiat, no more scarce than fiat

anyway. it seems many people still think core should remain king. and thus decentralisation is dead, but long live distribution

No, I do indeed mean that you can't have both big and small blocks. Either you try to keep the blocks as small as possible (ie. 1MB, or effectively 4MB as is the case with SegWit) or you increase the blocksize to another arbitrary number that may or may not be feasible in the long term. Either you try to move the majority of transactions off-chain with 2nd layer solutions, or you try to scale it linearly by increasing the block-size ever so often. Sure there was some political perspective to the whole debate as well, but from a technological perspective a slight increase from 1MB to 4MB -- as was the case with the SegWit softfork -- is a more prudent approach than even larger blocks.



I think we're both looking at Bitcoin's governance from two very different perspectives. I actually do see alt coin creation as part of the consensus mechanism, but I also missed a lot of the political details of what happened between 2014 - 2016. So I disagree with your statement of alt coin creation not being part of Bitcoin's evolution, but have yet to form my opinion on the political happenings that you brought into play.



Hence LN not being more permissioned in a meaningful way.

LN channels requiring an opening handshake doesn't make them any less censorship-resistant or trustless than on-chain transactions.



Serious question, what lead you to the conclusion that increased fungibility would effectively increase Bitcoin's supply? That's some Zenon level shit right here.

The existence of gold dust doesn't make gold bars any less scarce or valuable. In some places gold dust is used for overly fancy dishes and cocktails. You can literally shit gold, yet its value persists.

though i think you should really do some research on the matter, you can have small blocks and big blocks
for instance. segwit has (though they hid it with their new "serialised" and "weight" buzzwords) do have both small and big blocks
for legacy transactions. they are limited to 1mb of blockspace. but segwit transactions have upto 4mb of blockspace..

but the funny part was about the politics. that no 'other team' ever proposed "gigabyte blocks" which was the fear campaign of core members.
the compromise was where legacy AND segwit could sit side by side with 2-4mb blocks.. something that the network could handle (even core admitted 8mb was deemed safe and prudent)

again the 2015-2016 proposals were in a evolutionary and feasibale and able to function amounts. not out of the realm of anything that would break the network.
.. im guessing project fear worked too well as it seems even now people still have not looked beyond the curtain vail to see the light of day


first of all, LN wont solve spam. those spammers who are predominently mixers will continue to spam onchain. for multiple reasons. plus LN's niche utility is not going to be a solution for everyone. LN does have limitations and is not the utopia its presented as. its really worth doing some research

secondly segwit, as proposed as a softfork (the community consensus evolution without splitting the community.. failed with only 30%-35% of the vote. segwit did not get activated via a soft fork. it was BLOQ who were employed to create a hard fork(deportation of opposition) along with core that got segwit its 95% of the vote by casting out 60%


altcoin creation is not consensus.
"agreement, harmony"

altcoin creation is a political strategy. but is not the consensus mechanism of bitcoin.
the consensus mechanism of bitcoin relates to code, and orphans.. altcoin creation is about IP/node banning and human argument

Hence LN not being more permissioned in a meaningful way.
LN channels requiring an opening handshake doesn't make them any less censorship-resistant or trustless than on-chain transactions.
[/quote]
its not just opening a channel.. every  payment in LN is a handshake. its also requires each participant in a route to agree to giving away an amount of funds to hop payments. all requiring their signature.

it is permissioned. think of it in simple terms
instead of a simple cash payment to pay a milkman by leaving a bank note inside a empty milk bottle for when the milkman does his deliveries. you have to sign a contract and when you make a payment the milkman has to knock at your door and hope your home for you to both sign cheques for who owes what in a joint bank account you both set up.. its then up to one of you to decide when to empty the bank account by cashing out the cheques.

its not as simple as just handing a random person cash. its really worth you doing some research



firstly. splitting the units of measure has nothing to do with fungibility.. fungibility and scarcity are 2 separate things

secondly. if there were only 21mill units to share there would be true rarity/scarcity.. but because of splitting up the units, anyone can afford a small amount. so not many are actually buying whole bitcoins.
its actually got to such a point that due to the extra cost of 'satoshi's' being most around(byte per tx to sweep the satoshi dust) that core have implemented rules to ignore certain transactions of dust..

so not only have they made owning a whole bitcoin less appealing. but they then made it hard/impossible to own dust.
.. but take gold. with only ~175,000 tonnes.. do you see 170,000 richguys saying they each own 1 tonne of gold.  OR do you see BILLIONS of people who can claim that they own gold.. think about it

but anyway this conversation has meandered away from the topic of suggesting that core have/have not killed decentralisation.. answer is they have killed decentralisation. as there is a vector of attack that can halt development. .. but they will continue with the illusion by making people think distribution of final code is the same as decentralisation of control.. (its not the same thing)

but have a nice day and i hope you spend some time doing some research. it will help you in the long run

ok I think the Bitcoin cache name is a good name as well. I would like to be able to create both btw.

Now a little more serious. @franky1

What do you think about the deceptive marketing strategies used by Btrash? I can't use another word than deceptive.
Do you think it's a correct way to market your product? No. The way they are doing it is usually when you are out of the arguments to talk about your product (other than to repeat the same thing over and over I mean) Buying the Twitter account @Bitcoin was one of the last "tools" to use to spread FUD.
If your product is really good and really worth, you know how to defend without yelling online and if you think it's a better product than your competitor, then you should be able to argue each and every single point.

This is a reality. And when I think about it, the scam Onecoin was doing exactly the same thing, almost everything is the same

firstly onecoin wasnt even a crypto.
secondly i think all the bcash, bgold, bsilver and all the alts are just the same as clams.. a fork of bitcoin
and yes i even think that bitcoin core is a fork of bitcoin

as for the campaigning.. i think that if only 'the community' used consensus to stay united to evolve one network instead of making factions and giving up decentralisation by leaving it in the hands of only one team per coin. then things would be better.

i am not defending bitcoincash nor bitcoin core. i am just a supporter of the original ethos of bitcoin which was decentralised scarce peer to peer currency with near free transaction fee's. which pretty much every single descriptor i have just mentioned has been eroded away and then masked with the illusion of still existing with crafted buzzwords and misdirection

as for the future.
popularity will move. hell it could even end up that litcoin could become the coin thats accepted by millions of merchants(charlie lee + coinbase relationship hints that possibility). so for me its not even a fight between bcash or bcore.

its a fight for whatever future coin is nothing like fiat but offers a better storage/usage/access to funds than fiat. something that excludes no one, extradites no one, something that doesnt make it harder of one groupp or easier for another group. something that anyone can be equal with another person when it comes to "control".. which bitcoin has lost

(Onecoin: yeah true, it has nothing cryptographic or cryptocurrency in.)


So, does this tell you something? Lightning Network? No?
This is what Mike Hearn reported while quoting Satoshi https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html

https://i.imgur.com/EiIhOU4.png




Blockchains have some limits. Considering it "mass adopted", (everyone is doing/paying everything on a blockchain), you come to the point where it is saturated. Similar when you have all the family connected to the same router at the same time, it make your connection slower, more people you have in the house, you will need soon or later need to update/upgrade your system

The point with the Blockchain is something everyone should have been aware a long time ago, It was not a secret that it would be needed soon or later . But wanting to change the block size with silly parameters only is out of mind

i have been playing with multisig and even off line fund management for alot longer the LN was even buzzworded. i have seen the limitations of LN play out.
LN is not the sole solution that everyone will need/use/have desire for. LN is not unlimited and is not permissionless

that quote from hearne is about at a certain point a party can say im no longer going to sign cheques for our joint account. its time to go and withdraw the cash from the bank and close the account (wording it in ELI-5 banking terms). it has nothing to do with only one person needing to sign. while in LN. every payment needs 2 signatures
and if your part of a route/hop/hub then further agreements and permissions are needed.

yes there are niche markets that will utilise it as a 2nd layer service. but to assume or think everyone will use it is a foolish notion
once you start realising that CLTV is in old english banking term '3-5 business day fund lock after wire transfer' and CSV revokes are in old english banking terms 'chargebacks' you start to unveil what LN service really resembles..

other things like
[a:$60<->b:$60]       [b:$60<->c:$60]       [c:$60<->d:$60]
if A wanted to spend $60 to buy something from D
A has to get B to sign [AB] A also has to get B to sign with C in [BC]  and A has to get B to get C to sign with d in [CD]
thats 6 signatures that need to be signed just to pay D
(a*1 b*2 c*2 d*1)
.. also once its taken place it looks like this
[a:$0<->b:$120]       [b:$0<->c:$120]       [c:$0<->d:$120]
now.. B cannot buy anything from C or D bcause B has nothing left in[bc] to make an agrement with C or to use as collateral to get c to agree with D
C cant buy anything from D either.

so there are issues (many many others but i just use the easiest to display and understand in ELI-5 format as a demonstration)

.. anyway

as for the future.. with blockchains constraint (fear campaign) being "gigabytes".. there are already solutions coming out where instead of hashing transaction chains and making transactions of 9 years ago(so far) immutable.. instead what will happen is UTXO sets will become hashed and thus the transaction chain can be pruned off.
other things like a new fee formulae that charges say 1 sat if a person only spends their UTXO once a day but 144sat if its spend every 10 minutes
thus rewarding frugle spenders and punishing spammers that want to fill every block.

there are many ways to solve things onchain without the fear of "gigabyte blocks" and without reverting back to banking with managed accounts... there are also ways to solve priority and punishment of transactors. all without having to deposit funds into a multisig that requires someone elses agreement to what you want to spend..

Incorrect. While SegWit transactions are "weighted" differently than legacy transactions, the overall effective maximum filesize is 4MB. If most transactions are legacy transactions, the maximum blocksize is more towards 1MB. If most transactions are SegWit transactions, the maximum blocksize is more towards 4MB. It's still the same block though. For all intends and purposes, SegWit was a blocksize increase and that is effectively an increase to up to 4MB. No such thing as a differentiation between small legacy or large SegWit blocks.



Legacy and SegWit transactions are sitting side by side resulting in 1MB - 4MB blocks.



There's this thing called computers and software that handle the implementation details of such matters.

TCP requires handshakes. Should Bitcoin stop using TCP as one of its base layers?



Exactly.

Adding smaller denominations is an increase of fungibility and not a decline of scarcity, like your statement suggests.



If you could only buy / send / trade whole Bitcoins you couldn't use it as a viable means of exchange.

Why would you even require people to buy whole bitcoins?



What are you trying to say? There are both a handful of entities owning tonnes of gold and billions of people owning small portions of gold. Lots of people owning small portions of an asset doesn't make the asset worth less than if only few people own large portions of it. Quite the opposite. The more people own something, the better its liquidity, the healthier its market.

i edited the part where your understanding has a grey area that you seem to not have researched enough

if you imagine a block as 40 lines on a lined piece of paper (each line being 100kb)
legacy tx's can only sit in the first 10 lines of a piece of paper.. never able to sit in the other 30
thus the 10 line (1mb) restraint still exists

segwit transactions cannot put their entire transaction in the remaining 30 lines
segwit HAVE TO put the first half of its tx in the same first 10 lines of space that legacy tx's sit.. just to be able to gain access to the other 30 lines
thus the 10 line (1mb) restraint still exists

yes segwit are also affected by the 1mb limit..
its only the witness that gets to use the other 30 lines of a page/(3mb of a block), not the entire segwit tx

PLEASE DO RESEARCH - it will really help you out

in short. segwit "could" use upto 4mb of data. but that does not mean bitcoin gets 4x the amount of transactions
so please do some research as to why segwits 4mb is not the same as 4mb legacy blocks.. i think it will surprise you

Anyone can create a fork, slap the word Bitcoin in front of it and call it the REAL Bitcoin, if you throw enough shill money

behind it. We all know that BCash was an attempt at a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, masquerading as being the REAL Bitcoin,

and it failed. BCash is now just one of the failed Alt coins with Bitcoin in it's name.  ::) Unfortunately, when people look for

something related to Bitcoin {BTC}, they might end up at that toxic site and their heads will be filled with bullshit. The

control of the domain name, Bitcoin.com is very strategic to feed their misinformation to future investors, looking for the

REAL Bitcoin. {BTC}  >:(

That is why I'm not visiting that website anymore. Bias contents are a BIG NO NO to me. If they truly believe that what they are promoting on that website is the real bitcoin then let the coin speak for itself. After a huge jump late 2017 on it's price (BCH), there is no more exciting news prior to that.

bitcoin does not need TCP
i can write a private key on a piece of paper and screw it up into a ball and throw it at you.. you then get the funds without needing to shake my hand or agree or require me to ask you to sign for anything.

if i seen your bitcoin address.. i dont need your signature, your permission your agrement for me to send funds to 33jr6swgJxHwyFTgXKcv7kbKSy4du8Yt8r

i just send it.
but with LN. EVEN after finding the route/path and hand shaking to create a channel/route... that is not the end of handshaking.. EVERY payment needs the other person to consent/sign/agree to be a party of that payment. the more hops required the more people needing to agree to it and sign something

please do research.

but anyway.. trying to bring this topic back on topic..
decentralisation is dead, long live distribution

I never claimed that a block full of SegWit transactions has 4x the transaction capacity.

I'm well aware of the structural differences between SegWit and legacy transactions.


To clarify, my point is the following:

With SegWit, the maximum achievable blocksize, in raw data, ie. as bits and bytes that get stored on harddisks and propagated over the network is 4MB.

Yes, if the block is full and contains legacy transactions only it has merely 1MB. If the block is not full because it only contains a handful of transactions it's even less. If the block has part SegWit and part legacy transactions, it's somewhere inbetween.

But those are not the cases that interest us.

The important case is: What's the maximum amount of data that needs to be accounted for when storing and propagating a block. And this case is a block that is 100% filled with SegWit transactions. And that makes a block with roughly 4MB of data, signatures and all. So that is, effectively, the maximum blocksize.



Did you really just argue that Bitcoin would work just as well without the internet? ;D

It's a fun exercise, but would not be trustless anymore, ie. would lack one of the core properties of Bitcoin.


To expand:

If you hand me a private key as payment I have no guarantee that you don't keep a backup somewhere. Or that you "paid" someone else with the very same private key. In other words, I would need to trust you.

Unlike cash or gold, a private key, being digital data, can be easily copied and thus double-spend. Which is why, in the digital realm, the likes of PoW (or PoS, or PoWhatever) are needed. Which, for better or worse, do need the internet or some other forms of communications channel as a means of data exchange.

Franky1

So, according to you, Bitcoin doesn't exist anymore. It disappeared like some animal species on earth. Because if none is following the original Bitcoin's ethos etc, then there is no more Bitcoin.
If it disappeared liked some animal species then it's the Darwin theory. it can be applied to money as well. I am a fork myself, doesn't mean I have to follow my parents ethos

1. the bitcoin whitpaper is no longer relevant to todays protocol.
2. the rules have changed
3. the development is centralised to one team (distributed but not decentralised)
4. yes money is not the same trusted thing it was 50 years ago. not since it lost its gold swap promise
5. think about why people hate fiat, since it started losing all the original ethos/features of 50+ years ago. and you'l see my point about bitcoins mutation(offspring) losing the bitcoin ethos too.. making bitcoin brand no better than fiat in the end
6. you admit you are not your dad, even if you share the same surname...... think about that. your only the same in namesake only

sticking with your family analogy
to me, i care more about the heritage and the honour of what family name MEANS. it seems. as long as you continue having offsping(mutations) and the name passes on you dont care what it gets upto or what disregard to the families honour it may have.

seems too many have the mindset of 'screw it let a team own the protocol, as long as the brand name continues we dont care about the utility or function of the token as long as the brandNAME stays popular by advertising it, we can kill its utility/function...
... now thats exactly how governments dealt with FIAT 50+ years ago, people are duped into thinking a dollar today is the same dollar as 50 years ago, where people are duped into thinking fiat holds the same values, trust, etc.. which we all know is not the case

but the real thing i hate is over promising and under delivering.

as HeReUK points out about the insecurity of not using the blckchain. if its not logged on the blockchain. then there are risks about trust and other issues. and yes LN has risks and trust issues too. its not trustless, not permissionless, not immutible.. oh and its not fungible. just like paperwallet swapping offline is not trustless(yes i planted reverse psychology and he fell for it).
and as HeReUK says, whether he realised he was contradicting himself or not.
"some other forms of communications channel as a means of data exchange."
bitcoin does not need the internet. it can function on a completely separate network, without TCP

but thats my rant over about your meandering away from the fundemental point of the topic.
bitcoin could have retained its ethos and not slowly via misdirection lose all its promises (like fiat lost) to evolve as a network of multiple teams using consensus to unite the community. rather than avoid consensus and do the whole opposition deportation (controversial bilateral fork).

any way.. if your interested in how to rip people off and get free funds from people via LN. ill leave this here for you as just one example of LN flaws
P.S purple, red, green and orange are all 1 person(1 person, 4 nodes) attacking blue to double their money.
https://i.imgur.com/9FMMkdK.png
  
thre are many other flaws. like because LN doesnt rely on community auditing of payments while channel is open.. LN user(B) can tweak their node to get user (a) to sign first. but then B refuse to hand over B's signature. thus blackmailing A into broadcasting a older tx in the hopes of getting something. which B then gets the right to send out a tx he just signed to revoke A and to activate the penalty against A..

i could go on
i seen LN as a small side service for a niche use case and not as the be all-solve all solution to scaling. and i dont see LN as a fit for purpose tool even for that small niche right now.. it has too many risks..
which is why im not a fanboy that over promises over promotes and suggests its the best thing ever, when its not.

but hey
ill stick with my opinion that bitcoin(the promise/ethos/function/purpose) has deminished. and you stick with your opinion that the promiseless BRAND still lives..
but atleast you should accept that they are completely different things

decentralisation has died, long live distribution

When talking about the insecurity of not using the Bitcoin blockchain I was referring to your paper example and not LN.

LN is trustless, as you don't require any overseeing third party to ensure your money's safety. The only third party required, if you can call it that, is the Bitcoin blockchain.

LN is permissionless, as no one can exempt you on LN's protocol level from participating in the network.

LN is fungible, as you can use Satoshis as is (and potentially sub-Satoshi amounts); Upon settlement these amounts can be used like any other Satoshis on the network.

LN is not immutable, but its on-chain settlement is and trying to make illicit changes to a LN channel state gets heavily punished, making it a losing value proposition to any would-be attacker -- akin to how mining for block rewards is more profitable than attempting a double-spend attack.

Throwing a piece of paper with a private key on it is indeed permissionless, but neither trustless, nor fungible, nor immutable.



Oh, I'm very well aware of what I said! ;D

Here's the thing -- any internetless form of PoW would still require a form of handshake for keeping the blockchain state consistent across nodes.

Even if miners would solve hashes with pen and paper, sending the resulting blocks -- and therefore, their state of the shared ledger -- to the rest of the network using carrier pigeons, they would still need their counterparts to confirm that their state of the shared ledger is consistent with the rest of the network. They can't just throw a piece of paper in the wind like in your example with the private key -- they need acknowledgment from their counterparts, otherwise they end up on an orphaned chain. A handshake is still required, if only by carrier pigeon instead of TCP.

LN is trustless? seriously. stop reading the reddit promo material and actually do research.
1. you need to trust the other parties wont blackmail you for signatures.
2. theres a thing called autopilot that can send YOUR funds without your consent,
3. because its offchain people can alter their node to hack your funds and then at the end change it so you sign first (they gain the revoke) so if you then try to send a double signed tx to the blockchain. they can then revoke YOU. meaning YOU get punished.even if you were the victim of fund hacks.
have you even bothered to get an explanation as to the 'dont put too much coin into LN mainnet because you can lose it' (advice LN devs gave themselves)

LN is permissionless? wow please do some research. stop promoting something that you have not researched
1. you keep trying to make it out as if its just a channel opening handshake agreement thats required like tcp communications.. its not
2. LN does need permissions. for every payment. it is NOT a PUSH payment system. (learn push payments)
3. even if you run autopilot. making you the human not the permission giver.. the channel counterpart still needs your nodes permission (learn multisig)
4. you cant just say 'hi im A im paying D' and thats it. B, C and D need to agree on it if you are using the hop of 3 channels earlier example to get to D
5. as for no third party. again learn multisig. then learn why they want to bring schnorr into LN toallow fund managers to monitor the channel closes when people go offline(yes it will be a thing)
6. nodes CAN exempt you from participating.. after all.. those core fanboys have proven that already when they showed the meme of an LN node they named Rogerver being left exempt from the network. ill give other examples when explaining fungibility next

LN is fungible? again, you must be joking,
1. when creating a route some route decide rules, such as not wanting to connect to nodes of certain value, meaning some funds are treated differently and not accepted
2. its like saying 'i only wanna channel with you if you hold a $50 bank note. sorry if you only have a $10 bank note, goodbye
3. then its like 'ok you got a $50 bank note, but if your not willing to swap it in daily amounts of $1 then i got no use for you'
LN is not as connect to anyone anywhere for any amount.

please i really do think you should do some research. i mean this sincerely. really look beyond the glossy promo material and actually research beyond their buzzwords.

and if you still think that LN is better than the fiat system research what CLTV and CSV actually enable as features from the prospective of users.
here is a hint.
CLTV=3-5 business day funds locked on wire transfers(closing channels)
CSV revoke= chargebacks
sound familiar to the fiat system

good luck in your research, have a nice day

They represent the majority. and 74% of the crypto users agree with. we can't have 1 million of dev. there is only 1 captain on a boat. Did you really think Bitcoin could evolve with consensus? do you think people like Roger ver have the mentality to use consensus? Do you know what he said yesterday in a conference? Bitcoin kills babies, :D everyone was laughing. ridiculous, how do you want to debate with people like this. Look at GNU/Linux as well, so they should use consensus too, but look, nobody, agree with each other, one of the reasons we have +100 OS is because, at some point, a disagreement comes. And it's similar also to the community, you have the Fedora camp, the Archlinux camp fighting with the Debian camp, and so on...
I think it's a popular problem with almost everything related to GNU/OPEN SOURCE

But yeah we all have our own opinion, it doesn't hurt to debate. But I still say, Bcash is a hostile fork, and perhaps the only one in the Bitcoin series...

LN is not the only thing , it needs to be considered.

Increasing the block size, to get like 40 transactions per second, will do nothing compared with how many transactions per second Visa or Mastercard transaction can support (visa 25,000 per second, and can go up to 50,000) it's a solution for babies who plan to stay babies. What will we see in some months or years: scalability problem again! We need a 150GB block!
But it doesn't fix the original problem,  the only wise solution is layer 2 solutions.