Bitcoin Forum

That moment when one anonymous developer, Shaolinfry, changed everything, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Newbies, learn your history lesson. Bitcoin veterans, always remember!

Happy 2nd anniversary, Segwit.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EA2Kh_QVUAAUMqF?format=jpg&name=large

Credit to our friends at Crypto Meme Central, https://twitter.com/cryptoscamhub 8)

in my opinion UASF has been the worst thing that has ever been introduced to bitcoin mainly because it is incomplete and the way it has been used (BIP148) is a dangerous thing. basically anything that has a remote chance of splitting bitcoin must be avoided at all costs let alone having a very high chance of it. there is a reason why 95% was chosen, there is a reason why consensus exists and that is why bitcoin is still strong. in 2017 SegWit had ~35% hashrate support while UASF had less than 10% and even less node support but people were still pushing for it disregarding the dangers of it. the fact is SegWit was mainly activated because of SegWit2x not UASF.

when we plant the idea of anybody can split bitcoin without reaching that 95% agreement first, we end up with things such as bcash which consequently were also called "UAHF". if you ask me, if you support UASF then you are also supporting bcash. because that is exactly what they did: they had little support from miners and nodes, a small group of people decided they wanted a different thing and they went that way.

this is the only case where i believe we need to be black and white. we either reach majority support from every one (both miners and nodes) or have no fork at all.

by the way i am not denying the problems that the current mining situation has. specifically about pools having the power to signal anything they want without miners (who are connecting to that pool) having a say in it. but the solution should be solving that problem instead of adding more problems. something like this makes a lot more sense to address than issue: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/betterhash/bip-XXXX.mediawiki

Now, I know Bitcoin is all about consensus and such, but I still think if we only had one SegWit implementation from the start, then adoption would have been much faster. Yes, anyone can add things to Bitcoin and the majority would decide if it is used or not, but this over complicates the issue, when too many things with similar changes are added at the same time and then users are forced to make a decision and this takes too much time.  :P

I am not against open consensus for the decision making process, but I think it is sometimes a stumbling block for quick progress in a OpenSource project like this.  ::)

A happy 2nd Segwit anniversary to you too!


Setting the precedent that the community can push back against the mining-cartel's politicizing in the network, the worst thing?


The community wanted Segwit, the miners used signalling as a political statement, signalling is supposed to be the miners showing their readiness to activate, it's not supposed to be a vote.

The community pushed back.


I will say again that signalling is misunderstood as a vote. The miners politicized the process.

Yes, UASF was the minority, but many supported Segwit's activation.


Debatable. The NYA signers, who tried to control Bitcoin, were desperate. They knew they had to act before UASF activates.


It wasn't "anyone". It was the community wanting to activate Segwit, but the miners didn't want it.

The community won. 8)

It's really easy to get into a debate about precisely who or what is responsible for getting SegWit activated, but the important thing is that we did find consensus for it.  Users, miners and developers moving forward as one network.  I'm definitely in the 'Not a fan of UASF' camp, but whether the threat alone was sufficient to make it happen or not will probably be one of those arguments for the ages that never really gets settled.



Awesome, if you could just substantiate this claim by letting us know which Lightning "hubs" are run by bankers so we can avoid using those particular channels?  

What's that?  You don't have the slightest fucking clue?  Alrighty then.  Would you care to move on to your next barefaced lie?

of course, the ideology is great but as i said the implementation of it was horrible. it had an almost guaranteed chance of splitting bitcoin and that is the worst thing that could ever happen to bitcoin. Lest we forget, the "community" or more precisely the nodes which were signalling for BIP148 were only 11% of the total nodes.

true, we were supporting activation of SegWit but with >95% support of miners to prevent any kind of damage caused by splitting the network.... just like any other previous forks that we had with the same process. a process that works and has nearly no risk.

lol here we go again. good old doomad, windfury and carlton thinking if they pretend segwit got activated due to true consensus that the community will suddenly want to use it

sorry guys but pushing people off the network to fake a count is not true consensus. and now its activated i dont see 95% of UTXO's being segwit bc1q addresses or 3 addresses.. so it looks like the community are not that interested in it, even after 2 years of oppertunity to convert.

even funnier is that sipa (pieter wuille) still asks for donations using legacy addresses
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ (bottom right)
https://i.imgur.com/TDPtCCj.png
as you can see, 2 years after his project programmed got activated.. has hasnt converted
 guess he dont trust the address format just yet


but yea continue on with pretending the whole community wanted it. while the real community now 4 years on still waits for bitcoin to offer what it used to offer 2009-2015.

P.S dont expect LN to be consumer ready for another few years so please stop harping on that LN is the 'solution' to bitcoin issues

It is BIP91 which activated segwit.

S2X failed due to lacking true supporters.

What JihadWu and his minions needed was actually no segwit which means he could still spoil on covert asicboost.(S2X was his enemy as well then)
While some other NYA signers actually cared about activation of segwit, giving no shit about 1 or 2 (Both are acceptable for them).

Sometime I even suspected only JGarzik truely supported S2X at that time.

Since all LN hubs are running a IOU style system, IOUs for Bitcoins or litecoins or any segwit infected coin, technically they are all banks.

You however want to know which LN hubs are being run by current fiat banking monopolies, that is the rub ,
you will never know unless they announce it publicly , you could be using one every day and never know it.

But they count on stupid people like you expecting them to announce everything publicly,
and when they don't you say see nothing is happening , part of the reason the majority of the populace remain in debt slavery is your specific kind of stupid.  :-*

Now send wind_fury a $1 for his non-mining btc node , so you don't hurt his feelings.  :D
After all without him the entire bitcoin network collapses. satire. :)
Thank God for his Tandy 1000 personal computer supporting the BTC network. :P

Well. I never believed those UASF myth forged in some echo chamber.
Someone shouting at dawn never means it is the one who summons the sun.

I agree that UASF was a dangerous move, but I still think it should be done again if the circumstances demand it


Really, the overall pressure to get segwit activated somehow is what tipped the balance. UASF was a part of that pressure, and certainly the most belligerent component.

---

Meanwhile, the segwit compromise is working beautifully.

Bitcoin blocks are hovering around ~ 1.3MB, and have been for a while. People who aren't using segwit are pulling blocks down toward the max 1MB possible if no-ones using it, while people using segwit transactions are pushing blocks up toward the 4MB max.


Compromise achieved. Haters, shut your mouth

after reading the previous poster i have to laugh.
too much attention is being put on things leading to moving people offchain rather than things that can optimise BITCOIN

as the previous posters shows, he seems he is stuck on the blocksize debate. but avoids the increase capacity debate.
segwit has not increased capacity. its just allowed more bloated tx's to be hidden away. yet hard drives still fill faster.

if only he could show a single day that bitcoin achieved over 600k transactions (7tx/s that was signified in early bitcoin days) then those segwit lovers can truly say segwit has achieved atleast one of its promises

p.s segwit lovers are only segwit lovers for hopes of thm being LN watchtower/factory operators to earn some income. what they dont realise is they will only earn enough to eat chicken nuggets for christmas, yet they still dont care about the wider communities utility needs of bitcoin

I'm probably going to be the least technical person here commenting but firmly on the Segwit lover's side.

What's not to like? More efficient fees, my favourite wallet client provided for easy SW support. And everyone just getting over with it and focusing on privacy (yes, I think we finally stopped talking about scalability even though I agree with you franky, LN is not going to be easily or properly usable for years, but we know at least it really is only a matter of time).

On the side of the everyday user, I can tell you the only reason most people I work/transact with haven't moved over to SW is because the services they use haven't.


Hopefully the 3rd anniversary won't be about opening scabs or scars;)

I agree that BIP148 was dangerous. The biggest problem for me was the rushed timeline. By the time it was publicized, there was only ~2 months left before the fork. That's incredibly irresponsible for an incompatible (essentially a "hard") fork and to this day, I resent Luke Dash Jr. and others who promoted it. I mean, we're talking about a patch not even included in the reference implementation! That's just crazy. I wasn't aware that it even had any hash rate support at all. And of course, anyone can "pledge" hash rate but we would only really know about hash rate support at fork time.

I do think it forced miners' hand, though. They are very risk averse. They didn't want to risk the chain split, knowing that the survival of the BIP148 chain could end up being a drawn out political battle. If that happened, there was a tiny chance that the legacy chain would be orphaned if the BIP148 chain ever got more cumulative POW.


What do you do if a small group of users -- like a few large mining companies -- are blocking upgrades that users want? I don't have a problem with the UASF mechanism per se, but I think it must be done on a very long timeline (years) to maximize full node participation in forcing miners to fork.

you should as this from the services that the "community" uses. ask them why they haven't yet implemented SegWit. for example when the exchanges the "community" uses don't accept bech32 addresses, people don't use them.


that is a good question but here is another question; a problem that i see with UASF is that compared to mining (hashrate) the cost of running a node is negligible. you can't go buy a ton of ASICs to signal for what you want but you can easily "buy" servers and run lots of nodes and signal for what you want. an AntMiner s17 is $2735 (20.5e-5% of total hashrate), it seems it costs $10/month to run a node on AWS (~0.02% of total nodes)!

so for instance if in 2017 someone started a UASF to fork the block size to 32 MB and started running a ton of nodes, should we really consider that "the community"?

I'm happy that everything played out so well, namely the SegWit2x fork died without ever seeing the light of the day, but a part of me is curious what would have happened if it did launch - would we have another competing coin? How big would it be? Would it be bigger than Bitcoin? How would the market react, and what would happen with the historical price (we had ATH less than half a year after SegWit).

I personally think that Bitcoin would still have won, but after a serious fight.

Signalling with hash power also costs miners nothing. No cost is incurred until they actually begin building on the incompatible fork -- spending hashpower on mining rewards that could be worthless.

Case in point: Segwit2x. The 2x fork had 95% of the hash rate signalling support at one point. Yet it was abandoned a week before the fork out of fear of a network split.


In that specific situation, we could look at network statistics to point out the likelihood of a Sybil attack. Similar attempts were made with Bitcoin XT/Classic. We can't just look at node count, especially where it looks like no one is upgrading their nodes, rather they are just being added to the network through datacenters.

Like I was saying before, any incompatible fork should not be taken likely. It should be adopted on a timeline of years before the fork date through the reference implementation. This goes for a UASF or a hard fork.

We would need to look at long term node distribution, economically relevant nodes -- exchanges, services -- social and developer consensus, etc. to really have a good idea what would happen. My opinion is that if a UASF were done through Core on a timeline of 1-2 years, miners would be highly unlikely to risk remaining on the legacy chain, but all we can do is guess.

things like schnorr signature aggregation are awesome, but we can't limit ourselves to just optimizing bitcoin. transaction size can only be improved upon so much. hal finney knew it---bitcoin can't scale to all the world's transactions. at some point, you need to consider other compatible applications (offchain, trustless or trust-minimized) that can actually scale exponentially.


sure it's increased capacity. show me a block larger than 1MB before segwit was activated.

this is a good indicator but nowhere near accurate.
at any time there is a large percentage of nodes that run on these cloud services. for example right now ~20% of the the bitcoin nodes are hosted on Amazon and Hetzner cloud services. i believe Google also has some cloud services that people use (~550 nodes ~5%). possibly more that i don't know of.
many of the same users may run new nodes on the similar cloud services without upgrading the one they were running.

still thinking bitcoin cant scale is like kodak thinking digital photography wont succeed because of capacities of the time

the old debates about bytes has been busted so many times. we are in 2019 not 1994. we have fibre/5g internet not dial up. 4tb hard drives are under $£100

what can be optimised is not just the "size" which many fools think is the only debate. but also how the wallet apps load up.
EG the main complaint about "size" is not actually the size, its the delay at first loadup to then have a usable program. there are many ways to change it so people can be sending out transactions within seconds of opening the wallet instead of days/weeks.
emphasis: that is the main complaint


but concentrating just on segwit.. lets list what segwit promised and if it has/hasnt achieved it
1. better transaction capacity: no
    bytes per transaction has got worse since segwit.
    segwit is actually more bloaty.
    even with a 1.3x byte growth compared to ~2015 stats the tx count has not risen by 1.3x

2. fee efficiency: no
    fee's in 2015 where pennies with a top price of 25cents before users complained. fees now are more by averaging 25c

3. malleability: no
    segwit has not solved malleability for legacy
    devs want to introduce new opcodes to segwit that reintroduce malleability into segwit

the only 'thing' that segwit is useful for is being a gateway format for alternative networks like LN and sidechains, but as we all know LN and sidechains are not bitcoin

Segwit's script versioning also allows the introduction of new signature schemes relatively easily via soft fork. It makes implementing Schnorr signatures (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-May/016914.html) much easier. Schnorr signature aggregation can provide significant space and fee savings.

Which is brilliant.  But, let's be honest, based on his posting history, it's not like franky1 is going to be thrilled about the prospect of making implementing features via soft forks easier, now, is it?   :D

In b4 he posts "another Core plot to bypass consensus blah, blah, blah".   ::)

It wasn't ideal, I admit, but it was what's best in that circumstance in my opinion. It showed that the top miners, and the top merchants can't co-opt the network.


"Miners" of which was really Jihan Wu, and his friends, who politicized the signalling process to activate. He got his war, it didn't end well for them.

Oh I think Mr. Wu is doing better than most here.  :D

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihan_Wu


@WindFury, and your non-mining node still earns $zero before and after segwit.  :P
Does not look like you personally won anything.

He has been asked this question on numerous occasions and never answers it.  Also, his story has already changed since March, when he claimed they had already introduced it.  Now they apparently only want to introduce it:


So if they have introduced it, which one is it, Francis (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/78dae8caccd82cfbfd76557f1fb7d7557c7b5edb/src/script/interpreter.h#L21-L28)?  Which one allows malleation?  

I'm starting to think he doesn't actually know what the difference between a sighash flag and an opcode is.  But here he is on his little soapbox telling us that the developers don't know what they're doing.   ::)

franky1 is known to be a drama queen about everything when SegWit is involved :P
he may be talking about BIP-118 which "proposes" addition of a new sighash called NoInput. i don't know what it has anything with malleability but i have seen some concerns raised about it specially for when you do address reuse. although like many of the BIPs it is just a proposal that is not accepted.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-May/001242.html

The fork happen 2years back when there was a reason for split between the blocks size and claim for real btc , this has been a great journey so dar for the btc as the lightning as help reduce the scalability of the btc and make the transaction more fast than expected.

This thread sure brings back memories and its crazy how 2 years ago feels more like a decade in Crypto years. I used to be all over Reddit, Twitter and Bitcointalk and hear all these people going back and forth whether to activate it or not. There was that UASF campaign and then that Antminer CEO who controlled so much hashrate that the SEGWIT activation was more or less in his hands. Times were crazy.

It was so crazy that its the reason why I never sold my BCH after Aug 1st, because if for some odd reason BCH became the dominant chain and basically had a flippening, then I wanted to be hedged completely so I just held both coins. Which was smart since BCH shortly after was in the 4 digits.

Those sure were the days.

how exactly do you define "dominant chain"?
- having a minuscule hashrate, difficulty and proof of work compared to bitcoin?
- having a manipulated difficulty adjustment so they could mine 1000+ blocks per day compared to the normal ~144 blocks per day?
- being centralized?
- not being immutable due to the fact that they rolled back a bunch of blocks they didn't like using their centralized power?
- maybe by price, being worth 0.028BTC?
- or maybe by block size having blocks that are on average have always been much smaller than bitcoin? (200 kb BCH versus 1.3 MB bitcoin)

the proposals (BIP118 is just one such proposal) for no-input opcodes don't malleate the transaction hash, that's not possible anymore.

They do alter (or malleate if you prefer) which input is used after the transaction has been written (but obviously not once it's confirmed)

This makes payment channel protocols much better. Using them for on-chain transactions has no benefit, and comes with the risk you mention; if you reuse an address, and you sent a no-input transaction from that address once before, someone could replay the old transaction to spend the newer input, as the old transaction didn't specify a particular input (hence "no-input"). But no wallet developer is going to give you the option to use no-input onchain, that'd be dumb

still, the devs have been talking about exactly how to design the no-input feature for maybe 1 year now. they're being very careful, because it's definitely possible for the user to shoot themselves in the foot if they get too inquisitive and start trying to use no-input in transactions without understanding how it could backfire on them. It's not possible to do anything like that in Bitcoin transactions now, all the footguns were taken out of the scripting language years ago

But yet because of fear of losing, he and his friends activated Segwit, crushed by non-earning nodes.

Simply, Segwit was starting to gain ground in the community, and in some of the Core developers. UASF were nodes "saying" that they only want a type of block, if miners can't give that type of block, their blocks will be rejected.

The miners believe in economic reality. They had no choice. The first miners to follow the community, and the developers will be the winners, and the miners left will be the losers. Why do you believe Segwit won?

dang you really are believing the propaganda.
segwit does not have lower transaction BYTE hard drive storage size. it has UNCOUNTED size which they refer to as Virtual byte. these virtual bytes are used to make all the weight of a block appear as 1mb to not break the now outdated1mb rule

but when it comes to WEIGHT which does account for actual bytes. segwit tx actually uses more bytes compared to a legacy tx of same input/output count

maybe best to learn about segwit and how it mis-counts bytes


same could be said about the other way, using satoshi's instead of cents. less people are transacting as often because the cost is so high

the grand debate of bitcoins purpose WAS about a open currency without borders. yet the tx fee of bitcoin has ruled out utility to many countries of unbanked people

i am british but i travel alot. and while i see americans literally wanting to orgasm at the desire of a $20 tx fee to co-erse people over to LN so the west can make income as fee grabbing hubs, watchtowers, factories and routers. but the 3rd world countries are literally ignoring bitcoin because its been outpriced and made only fit for what they call the 'wall street crowd'

i have been subtle to tell some that i will offer them no input into their research of discovering which opcode will introduce malleability into segwit

if you cant figure it out, maybe you need to do more research

no input does malleate the tx hash
the tx hash is created by hashing a complete tx. and as you yourself said no input can alter a input after its been written

the point being if i was using no-input, i made a tx and then copied the tx hash to then monitor the blockchain for broadcasts. whomever gets the tx next  could then add more inputs, take away inputs. which would alter the tx hash.

what no-input does is allow alterations of inputs without needing to change the signature script. its the signature that dos not alter. but the tx hash does.. which is what malleability is all about. altering the tx hash to broadcast a tx using an altered hash so someone monitoring a specific hash wont see it.

Welcome back! But,

::)

More misinformation from franky1, what's new. You can't show anything/offer no input because there's nothing. Happy 2nd Segwit Anniversary! 8)

which is a trojan horse. imagine the blockstream/barrysilbert team (many exchanges, merchants and devs that made up the majority of the NYA agreement) decided to add a new script that allowed any input to be added even if the signature didnt link to the input (eg i put doomads utxo's into a tx to me, without the signature needing to prove im doomad's utxo owner).

there are many many other dangerous implementations that can be added and by having its as 'soft fork' (no consensus required) means that there is no way to prevent it.

i think the subtly game is up due to pooya revealing NO input.. if you didnt get the hint when i was being subtle about offering no input.. maybe you just didnt get the hint

i literally in several topics told people including yourself i was both being subtle.. and i was offering them NO_INPUT

just because you didnt get it, doesnt mean i didnt "show anything/offer" and doesnt mean "there's nothing"

but now its been presented to you clearly. i hope you actually do some research on the matter. and i mean read code and documentation. not just get propaganda fluffy cloud speaches from friends that cover up the true risks.

EG doomad saying he loves schnorr and soft forks. which shows he has not looked into the risks and is just fluffy clouding

1. july 2018 (14 months ago) devs introduced the new feature which they said would be included in the next segwit script update
2. devs were actually playing around with it meaning those with applications that had it in could use it.
3. the words i used were not 'publicly activated feature'
4. the words i used were "introduced".. which is the case
5. as shown by many quotes i could offer you, including one example i put into previous post to windfury. i have actually been telling people about no input since last year. shame you couldnt pick up on the subtly too
6. no input is both a sighash and opcode. if you dont think its a sighash then maybe you should review the bip which literally calls it SIGHASH_NOINPUT
7. you can do all you want trying to insult a forum username by attacking the personality. but if you do your research you will end up agreeing with the stuff i mention. (once you wipe away your 'fluffy cloud only mention positives' mindset)

people on this forum dont want to know only the fluffy positive propaganda which they will get from adverts and people promoting bitcoin. people want the real information which includes the negative.. remember to be on this forum they must have already heard of bitcoin. so there is no need to be trying to positively sell people on the fluffy cloud features. because they have already been introduced.. instead they want proper and real information

instead of trying to hide the negatives.. you should also be highlighting them.
a great currency is one that recognises its flaws and fixes them. not works around/hides them
if you actually cared for bitcoin then you would have the old mindset of the original devs that actually wanted people to try to find the flaws and try to break bitcoin so that bugs can be fixed.

P.S segwit is not a bugfix. its a gateway tool for another network

You "get it", OK. Or you claim you get it. But it doesn't mean there's "something", especially from your history, your anti-Core bias, and your pro-increase-block-size-or-die-propaganda.

How about you actually wait to see how it's implemented before you completely jump the gun with your alarmist 'sky-is-falling' nonsense, where you insinuate we're locked into a course where SegWit transactions will be malleable?

You could have phrased it that if the feature was implemented incorrectly, it had the potential to allow malleability.  But you chose to phrase it in the way that you did, making it sound as though malleability was the only conceivable outcome. 

You just can't help yourself.  Stop pointing the finger at other people when they call you out on the undeniable fact that you bring it all on yourself.  People would stop calling your integrity into question if you stopped giving them every reason to.

If it looked likely that the proposed feature would reintroduce malleability and devs still wanted to push ahead with it, then I would absolutely question that decision, just as I suspect everyone else here would.  Which is precisely why such an outcome is unlikely to ever occur.  But not once in the course of your last few years of your mindless FUD have you ever come close to making a reasonable statement like that.  As such, you deserve all the attacks people make on your character.  I can't even begin to comprehend how you look in a mirror and like what you see.  You are scum.

I didn't say SegWit transaction have smaller size in byte and i know the fact SegWit transaction have bigger size in byte, what i said are :
1. SegWit transaction have far lower weight size
2. SegWit indirectly allow higher TPS because max. block size changed from 1MB to 4 million weight unit


Fair point, but the fact average transaction fees would be higher without SegWit remains true


I agree with your opinion, but few people also argue that's the cost of decentralization.

nested segwit inputs are a little bigger than old style inputs, but bech32 (i.e. native segwit) inputs are a little smaller

some moral following devs have also highlighted the flaws.. you seem to be someone that wants things to break and then say "oh well X did say it was an experiment"

you love the idea of getting people off the network, you love the idea of increased fee's to deter usage, you love the idea of promoting positives to get newb's in. but then lack care about what happens when users actually want to use it

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

it appears you are more so the "scum" as you have quite openly shown how much you dont want people to use bitcoin as a currency

good luck with your greedy self indulgent idea's of how you wish bitcoin to be bypassed and users pushed towards other networks. but even with me wishing you luck, im afraid to tell you that your not going to get rich via your LN promoting and utility

If you cared about Bitcoin, you'd stop trying to turn it into a shitty BCH/SV clone.  That benefits no one other than the people in charge of those centralised shitcoins.  Now go whine to the devs of your preferred client, BU, to implement all the utterly dismal, imbecilic crap you think would make Bitcoin better.  Most of the devs on this chain just think you're a sad joke.  No wonder they ridicule you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1919964.msg19050638#msg19050638).



No, moron, you've got that backwards.  I've already told you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117074.msg50100061#msg50100061).  

as for ETF and Carltons debate about transaction size

bech32 uses MORE bytes
also nested segwit is also bigger
even funnier part is segwits only real purpose is for a LN gateway which requires bytes for a lock and multisig meaning when segwit does get real active for its true purpose the bytes per transaction will be higher

P.S
there are stupid websites that push the positive propaganda of segwit.. like this one
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/segwit/
celebrating how bitcoin has a 2mb block.. but look closely at the image... number of transactions: 225 (facepalm)

and good old doomad. running out of technical rebuttles so resorts to personal attacks.. how obvious
also trying to make out that i am part of bch team is him scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

if only he knew more about bitcoin and LN and not so much caring for his own greed, would doomad be singing a different song
by the way. devs do ridicule me. until they realise fixing bitcoin means more then protecting their own reputation. the ridicules end up just being about how i inform the community of flaws rather than be about the flaws. yea i dont spoon feed all details but for good reason. if those who rebuttle cant work it out, its their loss

as shown by doomads link. the devs had to do a workaround for segwit when i started mentioning its flaws in 2015/6.
same with segwits noinput. i mentioned it last year and suddenly they decide after introducing it to then not make it a public release and even a year later they still cant figure out a workaround for it. (but they still want to have it, otherwise they would have dropped it)
seems that doomad and devs have things in common. care more about reputation than bitcoin issues

the bech32 outputs are smaller not as inputs, it is because the ScriptPub (of type P2WPKH in comparison to P2PKH) doesn't have the same OPs otherwise the transactions spending them are bigger.
every SegWit transaction has overhead. there is the 2 byte marker/flag (=0001), there is a 1 byte leftover CompactInt indicating size of ScriptSig being zero, and finally the CompactInt added to witness indicating the number of items in it.
unless i've missed something in transactions, the total size seems to be the same for P2WPKH (smaller previous tx but bigger tx spending it)

Wait for the next Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Cash SV halvings. The Miners Of The Forks can't mine at a loss forever. The Forks will either follow Bitcoin's model, or their miners leave and mine Bitcoin.

or they do another hard fork (5th one?) and manipulate the difficulty again to invent the incentive for miners to mine their shitcoin just like they did in the early days when they were practically giving away 12000-13000 BCH per day to miners and it was worth ~0.24BTC back then so the miners profit was ~3000BTC per day instead of 1800BTC per day.

Plus use Bitcoin.com's mining power to mine Bitcoin Cash without the miners' permission, like the last time. Or pump Bitcoin Cash through their mined Bitcoins, like the last time.

Either of them will not be sustainable.

::)

Try harder troll.


Many have debated that, yet 10 years later it's still the king. Long live the king! 8)

compare their respective hash rates. miners obviously believe in BTC much more than those altcoins.


"just as good security"---no, not with regard to attack cost.

why should there be any guarantee that price covers cost? is that true for gold miners or any other commodity producers? of course not, because that's not how free markets work.

What anti-Bitcoin newbies like Kahos77 fail to understand, or avoid to understand, is that Bitcoin's model has been very sustainable. It's already right there in front of their eyes for 10 years.

More miners => more secure => more confidence => more users => higher price => more miners => ...

This is the reality.
BTC Miners => 4 Mining Pool operators = security is dependent on 4 guys with over 51% attack vector.  :D

No matter the energy waste the btc miners give 4 guys a 51% attack potential every day.
LTC also has a mere 4 guys with a 51% attack potential,
which is why coins that have more than 4 guys are more secure than your PoW pooling coins.

FYI:
Wind_Fury is so clueless, he thinks running a non-mining node can earn him money.  :D

I like updates of protocols. After segwit im paying much less fees

Misinformation. There's more than 4 mining pools, although I admit that mining has been cartelized into a few players, especially Bitmain, who threw away Jihan Wu in the trash can.

But, the game-theory behind Bitcoin is holding everything together, miners will not dare attack the network. Something that cannot be said of your dead Zeitcoin. Hahaha!


Try harder, troll. 8)

Just so I've got this straight, you want to present the simultaneous argument that Bitcoin is centralised due to a limited number of miners and also that a distributed network of non-mining nodes don't help at all with securing the network?  Is that correct?

4 "guys" control Bitcoin?


Then why can't the miners control a network of non-mining-node-running-basement-dwellers? 8)


No. When non-mining nodes say they want a kind of block that the miners cannot provide, then the non-mining nodes will reject those blocks.

Happy 2nd anniversary Segwit! #UASF.

Then reject the economic majority? That would be stupid, like you.


The miners do. Miners produce blocks the economic majority wants.


Why would they do that? Losing the community's trust would be a quick way to go out if business, wouldn't it.

In fact, the top merchants and miners tried to co-opt Bitcoin, they were hulk-smashed by a community of basement-dwellers.


So.? It's important to me that I validate my own transactions.


Not as stupid as a Zeitcoin hodler though. Hahahaha.

Happy 2nd Segwit Anniversary. 8)

Tell us, why isn't Bitcoin being constantly 51% attacked?


As I recall, a super majority of hash power signaled support for SegWit2x. It was also supported by the biggest companies in the space, including Bitmain.

Why did they all back out and stop supporting the 2x hard fork?


It sounds like miners don't really control the network at all, do they? What do you think will happen to Coinbase -- legally, and in terms of market share -- if they replace their customer bitcoins with an altcoin fork? The exchanges will let the market decide, not the miners. That's been the precedent since 2017.

At most, the miners can reorganize blocks or censor transactions -- incurring great financial cost for the privilege. How is that "controlling" the network?

Sure, there are no guarantees in life. Bitcoin's design is based on brilliant game theory, not irrefutable law. But the more years and years that go by, the less convincing your position is.


What would you have me read?

At first, I thought SEGWIT was a layer 2 solution like the Lightning Network that's a solution for bitcoin scalability problem but I was wrong. It's was made by one of the right hand of Satoshi Nakamoto which is Gavin Andresen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224).

They knew at first that the bitcoin users will grow and by that, transactions will also grow too. So they develop something to increased the block size 1MB, that thing called SegWit. Hoping to have more update/upgrade on the main protocol of the Bitcoin since the society is getting to adapt the usage of bitcoin.

wrong and wrong

• not "Satoshi's right hand man", he volunteered, he was not chosen
• he had precisely nothing to do with Segwit

Thanks to whoever came up with the Segwit idea. I can pay less for my bitcoin transaction fee and I need not wait for too long before confirmation. Waiting for full lightening network.

Any full node do validate. Any invalid transaction/not following the rules will not be relayed in the network. Bitcoin, therefore, is a validation stronghold.

You should learn how the network works, before trolling. You're an ineffective troll.


Wrong. That's not how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin is trustless, anyone can run a full node and validate everything for themselves.


 ::)

Who's pumping? I'm merely recognizing Segwit's anniversary.

Plus about 51% attacks, here are some misstatements about it, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4391393.0

As all non-mining nodes including the ones belonging to all the exchanges, miners' deposit to exchanges won't get confirmed unless those exchanges are stupid enough to trust others' nodes.

Then what do miners pay for the bill for electricity without fiat provided by exchanges?

Well, miners themselves are not too stupid to recognise the true bosses behind.
That's why Jihad Wu resigned from Bitmain and started Matrixport in July this year.

Wait, hasn't nodes of block explorers been shut down under the circumstance you assumed?

In the Bitcoin network's standpoint, it doesn't care if it's a mining node or a non-mining node. A full node is a full node that validates, then relays if transactions/blocks are valid.

Before you debate with me on this topic, you should know how the network works first. You are simply wrong.


That's not what the top miners, and top merchants said when UASF/NO2X arrived. 8)

They don't relay blocks if those blocks don't conform to the protocol rules the non-mining nodes are enforcing.  The function of the node is to validate first, then relay.  They don't just blindly pass the information along without checking it first.  Here's how the validation process works (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules#Explanation_of_Some_Rules), in case your ignorance proves overwhelming to reason and you need further explanation.

Every non-mining node carries out those checks on every single block.  If miners violate those rules, their block is rejected by the network.

You are a disinformation agent, who would happily see a network where miners were in full control because there weren't enough non-mining nodes to keep their behaviour in check.  But you might as well give up, because anyone with eyes can see what you're doing, it's that obvious.

If you're foolish enough to believe anything that lying scumsack says, then you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence.  FakeSatoshi clearly doesn't value full nodes and will lie to make other people think they're not important.  You will spread those lies because you're an idiot.

if only Doomad could wipe away the purple glaze in his eyes to finally see the negatives of the core team. he would then understand the negatives of "able to implement new features via softfork", which means that the normal nodes provide a LESS impactful part of the network then they did in the past.

pre-empt Doomads insults
pre-empt Doomads spinning core devs into gods speach
pre-empt Doomads ignorance of negatives
pre-empt Doomads just spin the reply into some chat about another network and its devs/ spokesmen
doomad. dont reply with your usual flip flops. if you cant understand the negatives and dont understand that its just pools and merchant nodes that become the deciding factor, then atleast do some research on your best buddy group of the bscartel (core and NYA agrement list)


anyways.. segwit 2 years on and no improvement to transaction counts or fee's. seems the "solution" for the 2015 highlighted issues, still exist, and will do until core devs really started to give a crap about bitcoin again, instead of their investors

1. segwit was not consensus. it was aparthied to fake consensus.. as your point three points out. to remain on the network after a consensus people need to update. segwit was implemented by throwing users off BEFORE the consensus number was reached.
a true consensus would only change its settings AFTER the majority of nodes decided they wanted the new settings.

2. segwits august aparthied campaign was more impactful than many other things that happened in the past. but again a TRUE consensus would only activate only in the event of a consensus..... thus impact is only 5%
segwit activated below 95% of usernode compliance, this just goes to show as my last post stated that core devs have bypassed the old priority that nodes would provide.

3. again not forcing.. of majority dont upgrade. it doesnt activate.. end of story. the confusion is the 2016 segwit bip was more consensus compliant. but only achieved 45%. thus no activation.. but the 2017 segwit bip allowed pushing nodes and pools off th network unless they complied to segwit..

this 2017 version was not true consensus. but pople still dont realise or even understand what consensus really is, nor how it should be achieved properly, which is wher people are not realising that the usernodes importance in the network has been deminished.

even core devs(paid by barry silbert) will admit that segwit activated only due to pools and merchants and it didnt need random hobby users nodes to do anything(backward compatibility)

.. that said. i can understand softworks used to just introduce new address formats. like the 2018 adding bc1q addresses. but when it comes to bigger settings like block sizes and how transactions should fit into a block. that kind of important thing should require proper and moral obiding consensus

pre-empt core fanboys hatred of consensus by saying "bitcoin is not democratic"..
those that want to rebutt. try to learn consensus. and if you still love the idea of consensus bypass.. learn the word tyranny, trojan horse risks and also centralisation

Stop derailing the topic, please.  No one cares what your personal (along with warped, insane, wrong and stupid) definition of consensus is.  The software people run determines the consensus rules.  Not you.  You are an insignificant nothing.  Keep running your BU node along with the other paltry dozen or so people on the entire planet who don't understand Bitcoin.  That's as far as you can go with your objection.  Anything else is just verbal diarrhoea on your part.  If that's not good enough for you, go cry to someone who cares, because none of us do.

It's beyond hilarity that you try to back up your fellow disinformation agent in spreading the lie that nodes don't matter when you spend every waking moment of your sad little existence whining about the software doing things you don't want it to.  As always, the reply is:

It wouldn't do those things if the other people running that code agreed with you.  Ergo, it stands to reason that they don't agree with you.  Troll harder.

now flop back to your love of the "compatibility" trick. that changes were implemented without people needing to update their code as they would just bypass true validation and verification of segwit transactions and just accept them.
(thus devs deem it ok for the home user community to not be required to do full validation as they are not important)

wake up and care about bitcoin and the network/protocol. stop trying to defend a dev team when they are allowed by people like you to change things without a true moral consensus upgrade procedure

aparthied/segregation analogy:
you would have been great as a bus driver in america's 1950's saying its ok to separate blacks from whites and pretend you are still providing a community service as blacks can still be on the bus.

yet you are ignorant about the whole community should include the blacks ability to vote.
pretending its ok to ignore a large portion of the communities vote because you want to pretend they dont lose anything in the fake vote..

sorry but the ability to change network rules without getting the majority to accept iit under the ruse of 'backward compatibility, validation bypass' makes user nodes less important

do you really think that this statement
'usernodes independently validate every signature matches the inputs to ensure a transaction is valid'
compares to
'usernodes simply accept segwit transactions, because the previous peer sent the block, meaning they validated it'

saying a change to a network is ok because those that oppose the change dont count. those that remain after the change have to trust other peers.. makes the network less secure


the whole 'power of network changes' is not home user node based. but instead pool and merchant.
atleast do some research and stop just caring about defending a few devs and start caring about the network

wrong---all valid soft forks (backed by sufficient hash power) are part of the consensus because they are compatible with existing consensus rules. no one needs your permission to add compatible rules, franky.

you already opted into bitcoin's consensus rules by virtue of running a bitcoin node. segwit (because it was backed by sufficient hash power) was 100% compatible with the existing consensus rules, meaning you already consented.

this is the same reason why 51% attacks and miner transaction censorship are also 100% compatible with bitcoin. that is bitcoin's security model: miners don't need "consent" to do what nodes have already consented to. nodes enforce the consensus rules, nothing more.

Unless you're ready to admit that this Khaos77 persona wasn't your first account (and it honestly wouldn't surprise me if you were RNC/Anti-cen/some another banned account) then you weren't around before SegWit was implemented.  Hell, even your old Zin-Zang account was registered post-SegWit (Deja vu, anyone? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5070680.msg48367119#msg48367119)  :D ).  If you had been around at the time to see for yourself the incessant infighting and lack of progress being made, you wouldn't say we were stronger together.  The simple fact is that the two ideologies are not compatible.  So those other chains are free to experiment with their larger blocks, but, at the same time, there's nothing to prevent them swallowing their pride and using this chain as well.  That's the beauty of it and none of your toxic poison can taint that. 

That's actually how network consensus works. Consensus means unanimity. It's impossible to get every single Bitcoin user to affirmatively agree to a new consensus -- i.e. a new set a consensus rules; a hard fork. So if users (like those who created BCH) want to create an incompatible fork, they are therefore leaving the consensus and establishing a new network, completely incompatible (and incommunicable) with the old. Breaking consensus = leaving the network. This is literally what happens on a networking level.

The Bitcoin network keeps chugging along as always, regardless of whatever hard forks are being spun off.


Hard forks are inevitable in any FOSS project. Bitcoin isn't immune to that. People are free to fork the code, and they will.

A large percentage ?

Current hashrate of BTC: ~ 78 EH/s
Current hashrate of BCH: ~ 2 EH/s

A small percentage decided to support BCH, instead of BTC (including segwit).




It is consensus.
Just because a very small minority decided to do something else, it doesn't mean that no majority was achieved.




Not really, the difference is marginal.
BCH's hashrate currently is roughly 2.5% of BTC's. This doesn't influence the security/strength of BTC at all.

seems your re-writing history... funny that.
simple english
BEFORE the consensus activation. nodes were BANNING other nodes and REJECTING blocks.
again.. incase you dont get it
before even having a chance to form the consensus to activate segwit. nodes were set to push objecting nodes off the network, to then fake a majority vote by not counting part of the community.

it was core devs that split the network. by pushing objectors off before consensus was reached

i think maybe doomad and 'figmentofmyass' still want to forget history to favour their idolism of devs. so for a third time

the DEVS THEMSELVES released code that without consensus, at a specific date of august first. anyone objecting to segwit wont be counted. yes the devs themselves done it.

consensus is a vote to cause software new feature upgrade. it is not a power tool of tyranic 'accept feature of fuck off'
consensus: :   agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, common consent, accord, unison, unity, unanimity, oneness, solidarity,

so a mandated aparthied execution of code is not 'consent', nor harmony, nor solidarity or unity.

but ht basic point being. now there is a backdoor in the network for devs to add new features without needing consnsus from now on.. guess what: TROJAN RISK

if you cant grasp the negatives of such then seriously just admit you care not about the network and only care for the devs to have free reign over the network.. just be a man and admit it

seems those that are 100% fangirling over certain devs instead of the network seem to be twisting the narative to explain consensus to b about AFTER the activation. the issue i keep addressing and informing factually is about how devs should achieve consensus to cause an activation.

banning nodes for not accepting rules before the rule even activated, is like throwing election votes in the trash that didnt vote for trump, BEFORE the election votes were counted, to ensure trump won.

what devs should do is not just push their idea of what they want. but listen to the community. and then make a feature that the community can accept. devs ignored and avoided the 2015 segwitx2 and the 2017 2mbsegwit. there was no consent, agreement on august 1st of the community... because if there was an agreement. there would not have been a split

its really revealing when the cor fangirls say things like "we dont ned your permission" as that is an admission that user nodes dont count. even ETFbitcoin and others subtly state that only merchant and mining pools count. but even then. forcing such merchants/pools to accept something before its activated or get banned off the network, is still not the right way to achieve consensus.

again if devs cant offer a feature that the majority can agree on. then devs should re design the feature into something that can get the community to back. NOT throw objectors off to fake a vote

i again will pre-empt the usual insults and flip flops and fangirling to say core are gods.. ill just say to those.. that caring for the network and wanting to avoid trojan risks should be higher priority than dev love, especially when devs ARE NOT IMMORTAL. they WILL move onto different projects, retire, or eventually die. so no point protecting a few temporary entities that are currently putting the network at risk

risk: did you know that devs can implement new tx formats that bypass signature approval requirements and also reintroduce malleability, and even allow randoms to sign on behalf of others without the others knowing who signed the tx.. and all this can be done without the nodes having to form a united community of agreement

do not reply if your mindset is still to fangirl a dev. if you dont like what i say. hit the ignore button on the left

Doomad was only pointing out the facts. You cannot debate that. I can respect your opinion on the Bitcoin Core developers, but I cannot accept misinformation. It's simply wrong.

UASF less impactful? It actually opened everyone's eyes that it's more impactful.


What do you propose? 8)

Fees are definitely improved. They are not perfect but they are currently less than they were 2 years ago, even though the price has increased significantly and blocks are near full, at about the same size they were in January 2018. That's a drastic improvement.

Just compare the 2 charts and see for yourself:

https://bitcoinfees.info/
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2years

Look at the satoshis per byte fee chart. Definitely reduced.

Haha. It's only a debate they use to trick newbies into believing their narrative, and to prevent the said newbies from studying, and going deeper.

Nodes were DISCONNECTING other nodes, not banning them.  You are the master of trying (and failing) to rewrite history.  Troll harder.

seems you have not read the code, nor stats, nor even looked beyond the preaches of your buddies.
1. UASF is just a buzzword. you seem to take the acronyms meaning on face value to think it actually meant USERS(whole community) HAD TO participate to assist.
what you do not realise is that it only required the core devs with control of the networks dns seed nodes, the 'fibre' nodes to ban(disconnect) nodes to throw them off the network. this included pools nodes

2. if you talk to your buddies about the backward compatibility code, they will tell you core fangirl USER(community) nodes didnt need to upgrade to be on the network.. it just needed the important infrustructure nodes

3. as august 1st shown by pushing off the opposition, and getting MERCHANT nodes and POOL nodes to be armtwisted or bribed by investers to accept segwit, that it caused segwit to activate as it appeared there was no opposition because opposition and user(community) nodes did not get counted.

4. even speak to doomad your girlfriend, doomad has been endlessly stating that devs dont need users permission.

actually do some proper deep research and ask questions rather than just listen to your buddies stories and take it on face value.
UASF did not mean the community had a vote and assisted in the soft fork.. it was just the prime important nodes of mainly the pools and merchants

if you dont want to do indepth research, then atleast take a step back from discussing things you dont know, but pretend to know

5. the important part is. that core now can use a trojan horse network to change the network. and any future forks will mainly be just them giving a pitty illusion of community participation in devs decisions. as doomad says devs can do what they like and no one can stop them

....
doomad keeps on saying how user nodes validate all blocks and important to the network. yet the validation which usernodes do is just for self certification of what the node stores themselves.. usernodes no longer are important to upgrade decisions.

No, but you "seem" to reject history, and what really happened, and try to be on a misinformation rampage again. It's YOU who's trying to rewrite history, or should I say gaslighting again.


Not according to history. Research UASF.

There's a reason why we use the term consensus -- not majority rule or democracy or any other such nonsense. This is not a vote. You either join the existing consensus or leave it.

This is free open-source software. Nobody can stop anyone else from splintering off. That's their free choice.

windfury. do proper research
read the code... not your buddies interpretation.

oh and while your at it, if you really want to know about segwit. ask Sipa.. and while asking him, askwhy he does not trust his own donations to be secured by segwit

he seems to prefer legacy..
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/  bottom right of page
" Tips and donations: 1Nro***
bitcoin-stats on GitHub "

its been 2 years and he still aint ready to put his own income on hi own invention

oh, then go speak to samson mow. ask about his previous job and how one moment they were supporting segwit, but when activated the pool he was employed by didnt even trust segwit to put its blockreward onto segwit. go ahead ask about it

So, not content with wanting to tell Sipa what they can and can't code, you also want to bitch about where they do or don't keep their funds?  Nazi much?  Any other orders, mein fuhrer?

[✓] Doomad still highlighting tat devs should do as thy please to the network, unprovoked
[✓] Doomad cant explain a thing but just turns it into an insult attempt
[✓] Doomad still not open minded to think outside the core fangirl box

any orders? yep.
1. if you dont likewhat i have to say, hit the ignore button
2. do some research
3. actually try point 2 for once.

It has been 2 years since SegWit was activated. And it's almost 2 years since SegWit2x failed to replace SegWit. Both are a big history in the world of Bitcoin. Where every SegWit has a good destination for Bitcoin. And it also benefits users and Bitcoin miners.

I can only hope that in the future there is a better solution for Bitcoin users to speed transactions, We know that a block of 1MB can still accommodate all Bitcoin transactions every day. At least we need a slightly larger block to accommodate the needs of Bitcoin transactions.

Do my research? What are you talking about? You told everyone that Lightning transactions are made of IOUs. I did my research, it's NOT made of IOUs.

What you should do is stop the lies and misinformation, and stop acting like you know more than everyone, "because you can read the code". But you're trolling. OK.

they are iou's.. its the same as bank notes that were pegged to gold. are you that naive about the fiat system too.
the settlement (hint is in the name settlement) is where funds that are owed are shared with those in the multisig, in amounts those in the multisig agree each owe and are owed.

LN is not moving real bitcoin, like century old bank nots were not moving real gold.
understand the vaulting mechanism of segwit and you will understand bitcoin stays locked up. and that a pegged token is then used on another network to represent what share of the vaulted coin is owed and who to.

seems your so unresearched that you have not even looked into other sidenetworks pegged to bitcoin. devs even admit that things like LN and Liquid are not moving bitcoin or settling funds, but just making gestures as to who owes what. not who actually holds and fully owns securely what.

if you have not understood the fiat 'debt system' to realise why fiat is so flawed. even though fiat has ben around all your life to have had time to understand it and research it.. then i am not surprised that you cant grasp aspects of things that are less than a decade old

franky1, stop.

I want to respect you, and the people like you from the "other side" of the debate.

You can support/use/HODL a cryptocurrency that has lesser security model in exchange for making it more suitable as a medium of exchange. But you don't have to lie, or misinform, or attack other people who don't share your opinion/support.

if you want token A on network A to be a good medium of exchange. then pegging off and using token b on network b is not, again NOT IN ANY WAY making token A a better medium of exchange. because token A is not even used.
(and before you start saying an LN payment is a btc tx.. no.. Msats are not a token that exists in btc)

if you want to keep going down the route of saying btc can exist on other networks. then you have shoot self in the foot in regards to the bch debate about brand identity

plus dont continue on about how LN is a btc layer that will make btc great. because LN is muticurrency independant network. not a feature solely offered to btc to make btc greater than others

its becoming too apparent that some pople believe th flufffy promotional material and dont even dare to look beyond it and actually read code speak to devs or just use it abuseifly to see if it breaks (bug fix tactic)

Sorry franky1, we have debated about that many times. I cannot accept something wrong as something right. Read this if want to criticize Lightning, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170358.msg52165227#msg52165227

That's what I dislike in blockchain. Developers would say something, get criticized, and then declare that something else was their original intention.

so khaos and you were talking about IOU. and you rebuttled with a quote about capacity.

thats like having a conversation about describing beef. and then you start talking about orange juice

as fr the bit where u were quoting carltons flop whn describing the iou's
1. LN is iou system and yes pople can be 'stiffed' by their counterpart. even LN devs lost funds
2. LN is a different network, msats are not btc. LN is a pgged network to let users write iou's to each other and then settle the debt at a later date
3. alex's flip flop tweet about decreasing capacity actually increases capacity. is actually false. the btc network and its token do not increase capacity due to LN. it diverts users off the network so that other users can fit into the same capacity.

EG
btc is capable of ~600k tx a day
a bus is cable of60 passengers

take users off the btc network to use LN
take people off the bus to use a train

does not increase btc capacity
does not increase the bus capacity

btc remains at ~600k capacity
bus remains at 60 seat capacity

again the bus still has 60 seats and btc still can only do ~600k tx a day

You still don't understand it.. sigh..
We already had that discussion. And i explained it to you several times.

What you describe as 'btc' in your example is just an on-chain transaction, not the whole network.

The BTC network would be to get people from X to Y.
And in this case it doesn't matter whether they take the bus (on-chain) or the train (off-chain).


That's how i would explain it to a kid (i.e. to you).
In reality nothing works like that and your example is pure garbage. You can not compare network transactions to taking a bus/train.

I mean.. you keep using something like 'increasing blocksize means twice as much seats'. Well.. it works for such extremely simple things.
But what about segwit ? How would you describe segwit with busses ? Or schnorr signatures ?
Things aren't as simple as you believe them to be.

You are alone with your opinion, accept that and move on. No one cares what you think or have to say.

bob123.. do not get involved in LN discussions..
seriously you have no clue.
i have read the code spoke to devs, read the documentation and actually used LN. .. unlike many core fangirls that lack such research

by you even trying to think LN is bitcoin is soo flawed that when you actually do eventualy go into details about it, you will end up facepalming yourself when re-reading your old posts.

LN is a separate network.
LN pegs different coins. yep right now its litecoin, vertcoin, btc. but the list continues.
if you cannot grasp the fact that btc remains on the btc network and a peg is used.. then you need to research msats in LN and then when you find it. try finding msats in btc.. guess what... you wont find it. because the two tokens/mediums of exchange are not the same thing. btc network does not understand msats

atleast try to read code/use ln.

as for segwit, just check out the code for segwit. it says LOCKTIME.. not swaptime, not anything else to even hint that btc moves networks. it just locks btc o the btc network for a period of time. and then on the separate network that lock is used as evidence to then allow LN to create new medium of exchange called msats in the LN channels

whats next? core fangirls gonna say if btc is LN and ltc is LN the ltc must be btc.... think about it (hint: no its not)

as for bus analogy for legacy/segwit. simple

after segwit activation, buses upgraded to quadruple decker buses. now then. when a segwit family gets on, the parents(witness to childs existence) sit upstairs but the child(txdata) sits downstairs. the legacy family stay together and can only sit downstairs. the bus driver then only counts the passengers on the downstairs level and only charges them for a bus ticket.

as for schnorr. well the parents get together and nominate only one parent to get onboard the bus with the child.

those that think LN is btc.. must by default think last century bank notes are actual gold... (facepalm)
seems more people need to do independent research and drop their attachment to getting spoonfed misinterpretations from their buddies

by the way. if you do not have sole control of your assets, they are not your assets. its an old bitcoin tale but still worth people remembering when using LN. because many people including devs of LN have lost funds using it.

i personally would never want to associate a weak security service like LN with btc as it tarnishes btc.. id rather just call it a side service available to multiple networks including btc

bitcoins greatness lays in the fact that its secure. so trying to link an insecure separate network thats not even a blockchain under the same brand is actually worse then associating bitcoin with bch

Which ones?  The BU devs?   ::)

I'm guessing you didn't speak to the ones who left you negative feedback for:
or

Either way, if I hear directly from a developer that something is wrong, I'll take it under advisement.  If you tell me your contorted interpretation of what a dev supposedly told you, which likely bears no resemblance to what they actually said, I'll ignore it, because you have zero credibility.  Find a new audience, this one is booing you off the stage.

doomad, keep kissing core devs asses. as it seems you wont stop. but when you speak with them actually ask about negative impacts of things. dont just ask for fluffy unicorn versions

gmax had a gripe with me about segwits issues in 2015, to do with the anyonecanspend. yet year later he must have realised it himself as his team he managed then done a work around.
gmax had other gripes too, but instead of factually rebutting he went down your path of just insults.
gmax has made many fails over the years, he is very opinionated and doesnt like it when negatives are mentioned. if only you knew the amount of vulnerabilities his team added to bitcoin over the years. even you would start to losen ur lips from him

but hey, i know you will just continue your insult hurling by just saying 'wrong because wrong' (lack of evidence) so i accept your standard replies as such, i just wish ud use the time better to do some actual research

anyone that actually cares about bitcoin, should not be a dev kiss ass. but instead someone that calls out issues and holds dvs to conform to a certain standard. just having a 'let the devs do as they please they dont need anyones permission' is like handing a country over to tyrants

do not reply if your going to be a core fangirl in your statements. try to use the part of the brain that cares about the network(not humans)

Bitcoin is not merely a medium of exchange, and its network can secure more than just Bitcoin transactions. Why is that a bad thing?

Users can use either token as a medium of exchange, depending on which security and UX trade offs they prefer. Why is that a bad thing?

Till date am yet to understand the importance of Segwit to the blockchain. I think it is more of a hype than function and use. It is more noise than facts. Even the Segwit to Segwit transfers do not process that fast.

Segwit transactions are still on-chain Bitcoin transactions -- beyond the moderate fee savings, they are no different than standard transactions in terms of speed. The point was never to speed up on-chain transactions, which are always subject to the fee market and Bitcoin's 10-minute target block time. It was more about enabling/supporting future features -- Lightning, Schnorr signatures, sidechains, MAST smart contracts -- by adding script versioning and solving transaction malleability for Segwit transactions.

No. My last post in that topic was my criticism. Kolos79 misinforms. Anything that come out of him are lies to trick the newbies, or to annoy everyone. But I'm never annoyed of anyone. I say bring it on, all the misinformation, and the gaslighting.

But read my criticism, it's the last post I made in this topic, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170358.msg52165227#msg52165227


Congratulations. You are on the path to learn Bitcoin. The hard way. 8)


Eat all the crayons you want, you're still wrong. But do continue your misinformation rampage, and get as much newbies to learn from you. Let them learn the hard way. 8)

wow. It's amazing to realize that segwit is just 2 years old and 90% of people and business I know has already moved towards segwit. We'd again need similar collective effort towards the adoption of an improved version of Lightning network. But for that we should improve the lightning network first.

"transaction speed" is two things:
* the propagation speed which is the time it takes for a tx to reach nearly all the nodes. and it only takes a couple of seconds. it is equivalent of the bank sending a money transfer to another account in another bank for example which can take a day or two.
* the confirmation time which is the time it takes for a tx to be include in a block and it is limited by the time between the blocks. and that is equivalent of your bank transfer becoming final and irreversible and that could take months.
neither of these have anything to do with SegWit though.
these are benefits of SegWit: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

and by the way it did not enable any of the things you listed. it is supposed to make them easier otherwise all of them (LN, Schnorr,...) can happen without SegWit but harder because there are complications such as malleability. for instance Bcash has already enabled Schnorr although it has also implemented most of SegWit but it is technically without SegWit ;)

Yes I am, and you are the smart one.

Newbies, listen to him. 8)


It is important to me, and it should be important to thousands of others who run their own nodes. The nodes receive transactions, and blocks, they validate, and relay if they are valid.

You said that mining is centralized to 4 pools. Do those 4 pools' nodes are the only nodes that matter?


I believe I would see an IOU system if I see one, but you haven't showed me one.

Plus good news, Segwit is 61% of Bitcoin transactions.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECqNVpVXUAA7h28?format=jpg&name=large

Well, having segwit is better than no update for five long years. The debates have lasted so long on whether to do everything onchain or use layers on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead.

seems a bit vague as a statistic

https://p2sh.info (https://p2sh.info) has more specific headings for their charts, and their Segwit usage charts show:

• 30-40% in fees are spent on segwit transctions
• 30-40% of the bytes in a block are from segwit transctions
• 40-50% of transactions include a segwit input
• 60-90% of BTC sent is from a segwit input
• Blocks are averaging about 1.3MB as a result (peak size 2.1MB)
• Tx/day peaked at over 500,000 (a little less meaningful now more batching is happening)

It would be interesting to see how many outputs per day are being sent, that's a better yardstick than any of the previous stats (athough they're all interesting/useful)


However, the success of segwit is far from total:

• 1.8% of outputs on the blockchain are bech32 (i.e. native segwit)
• 1.7% of outputs on the blockchain are P2SH-P2WPKH (i.e. nested segwit)

so 3.5% of BTC is kept permanently in segwit addresses, although the rate at which people are putting funds in segwit  addresses is gradually speeding up (again, as seen at https://p2sh.info (https://p2sh.info))

so that means that the people who send Bitcoin everyday (i.e. in commerce) are taking the opportunity to use segwit to keep their costs low. But hodlers are just sticking with their long term addresses, why move your money if it's not needed? That makes sense, when people holding Bitcoin long term need to use it, they may well take the opportunity to save on future transaction fees. If they've heard about schnorr and other fee saving upgrades (as well as privacy improvements in e.g. taproot), they have even more reason to wait until absolutely necessary before switching long-term savings into new address types


to summarize:

• Segwit dominates daily payments on the network, but not completely (~55%)
• Compressed key P2PKH (i.e. legacy addresses everyone is most familiar with) dominates dormant money that doesn't move, and it does that almost completely (~97%)

and I'm totally happy: blocks are kept small-ish because of more heavily weighted inputs still existing so abundantly. Compromise: achieved

I was obviously referring to the confirmation time. I don't think any newbies complaining about transaction speed are referring to propagation time.


I thought that was adequately covered by "enabling/supporting." If an implementation of Lightning relies on Segwit, e.g. to fix transaction malleability, then the choice of words was correct. Sure, we could have implemented LN long before Segwit but the UX would have been absolutely horrible. What's your point?

please! you're as disgusting as them!

save it for the troll bukkake (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179014.0)

Late Bump.

Did we forget? I honestly did forget, BUT we shouldn't forget, and how the community resisted the Oligarchs, and the Mining Cartels.

Happy Anniversary Segwit! Read OP, and never be gaslighted. 8)