Bitcoin Forum

1. Lightning network is not a Bitcoin transaction way
2. Segwit is not a Bitcoin transaction way
3. Blocks larger than 1M are not Bitcoin blocks
4. The rapidly increasing price is a sharp knife to Bitcoin

I was shocked that during the hard fork of bitcoin cash, there was no bitcoin that rejected segwit and refused to expand the block. At this time, bitcoin became not bitcoin.

Transaction volume and fees are not the flaws of the original Bitcoin.

I can understand that the user pays transaction fees to buy the bytes of the block, so the byte of the block is a commodity, and the quantity of this commodity is fixed. The demand comes from the fact that the trader needs this byte to confirm the transaction.

Therefore, expanding the block is like increasing the Bitcoin limit of 21 million, and segwit removing the signature data is like buying half of the goods. This is cheating, deceiving, not innovating. As for the lightning network, I can’t understand everyone looking forward to the lightning network

lightning network

This is to fundamentally change Bitcoin and reconsolidate the decentralized rights into the hands of a few people. Segwit is increasing the rights of miners, and expanding blocks is to issue more commodities to miners, just like the right to print money for miners.

These are not the way of Bitcoin. The transaction volume is a pseudo-demand. This is not a real problem. The real function of money is not to pay the bills. The function of money is to store value.
It is naive to imagine Bitcoin to buy coffee, but people can use Bitcoin to buy coffee consumption cards or coffee points. This is okay, and there is no problem of privacy leakage.

The centralization of small consumption is not a problem, because small consumption itself is decentralized. When gold and silver are currency, no one has ever come out and say, let us change gold, change silver, let us change gold and silver When copper coins are used, they can’t be used as copper coins to buy coffee. Is that still money?

So, the original Bitcoin has disappeared forever on #478559 / 1 August 2017 (3 years ago)

Now that there are bitcoin core and bitcoin cash, they can’t be said to be the original bitcoin, they are modified versions of bitcoin.


As for how Bitcoin disappeared, the reason is the price. The huge price increase created the illusion of success of Bitcoin. But, when Bitcoin and price are closely linked, Bitcoin cannot be used. This price increase is traditional currency issuer attack, no one noticed

The currency issuer has successfully controlled the development of Bitcoin. A few people decide the way forward and change the way Bitcoin is traded. Everyone thinks it is technological advancement?

Bitcoin is just the same ledger shared by many people. Now everyone is discussing, let's change the accounting method. Unfortunately, this proposal has been successful.

I don’t know if someone rejected segwit at the fork and refused to expand the block of Bitcoin. If so, please let me know. I can say loudly that Bitcoin has not disappeared.

How much Bitcoin is worth, the focus has become traditional money, not Bitcoin. The abnormal price growth has attracted a large number of investors, not users.

Investors continue to change Bitcoin, making Bitcoin a perfect story, but it is only a story. Investors say that they want to replace Visa, but they don’t say why they want to replace Visa. It’s just a valuation of Bitcoin based on Visa.

The user looks at the rapidly increasing price and can no longer buy  bitcoin in a short time. The investor said that you can buy 0.00001 bitcoin and it will be very valuable in the future, trying to convince the user to become an investor.

It is the high price that makes Bitcoin unavailable for daily use, not the transaction volume and Bitcoin transaction fees.

It can be said that Bitcoin must have a high price, because as the number of users increases, the demand will rise. This is true, but what is needed is as the number of users increases, not as the price increases. The number of investor will increase.

Traditional currency issuers, using money as a sharp sword, successfully allowed Bitcoin to be used only for large speculation, and then manipulated the market, making Bitcoin a sword that stabs people and harvests people money.

This is not Bitcoin. This is a dog of a traditional currency issuer. The wolf is attracted by the printed food and surrenders the rope to control itself.

This is a sad story. Maybe the price of Bitcoin will get higher and higher in the future, but this is not the success of Bitcoin, it is the success of traditional currency issuers. No matter how much it increases, the only purpose of Bitcoin is to convert it into traditional currency that can be used.

So, Bitcoin will not become money, so how can you buy coffee? In order to allow Bitcoin to buy coffee and change Bitcoin into an investment product, is this a huge joke?

What is the reason why the usage rate of segwit has not been high? It can reduce transaction costs and change the address format.

There is also an HD wallet problem. This thing is also very bad, but it is completely accepted. Use seeds to generate an unlimited number of addresses. You only need to remember a dozen words to use these bitcoins. It looks good, but it will Bring great insecurity.

The developer completely isolates the technology from the user, and the user does not know what address, private key, public key, and signature are. These things should be extremely simple, so that all users understand what is protecting Bitcoin, not a dozen words Protecting the funds they have worked so hard to get.

Human beings are very fragile individuals. They will forget and leak. Even words written on paper are sometimes lost. When HD wallet leaks or is lost, all bitcoins will disappear.

HD wallet does not increase security, but it can reduce the number of wallets. HD wallet can only increase the convenience of multi-account use of transactions.

Multiple accounts and identity isolation

These should be done by users themselves, not by developers instead of users. Users can generate multiple Bitcoin addresses, completely independent, and will not lose all Bitcoin due to the leakage or loss of a dozen words.

Bitcoin does not need frequent upgrades, it is just a shared ledger, but now it is hiding the ledger, changing the ledger, and allowing users to use it without knowing it.

Only when people can understand the private key and public key, and after signing, will they be able to use Bitcoin with confidence, instead of trusting a wallet program and not even knowing what they are backing up.

Anyone can understand Bitcoin. This is not advanced technology. It is just a method of bookkeeping. It does not need to become more and more complicated. Anyone who says that ordinary people cannot understand Bitcoin is wrong.

This is what I said, Bitcoin has disappeared.

As speculated by many people, bitcoin will not be used primarily as a currency. It will be used as a store of value. It is much better than gold therefore people call it a digital gold.
On the other hand ethereum along with defi will be used for day to day transactions. With eth2.0 the high fee issue of eth will be resolved too. We are silently moving into digital era.  :)

yes, for sure Sgewit isn't bitcoin. this is my first time i heard about Sgewit. where you find it?

If disappeared, Block doesn't continue to #478560,

Look like you have been sold out of your bitcoin.

sorry for that,is Segwit

2, Blocks that do not contain signatures should not be blocks of the original Bitcoin.
3,you are wrong

but, the transaction signature is not in the block or the block is big than 1M.
backward compatibility: bitcoin adress is called legacy

What is legacy?

I think Bitcoin Gold is what you seek, they wanted the true bitcoin, mining with GFX cards only, no ASIC wars, everything else is the same as pre 2017 Bitcoin.  Have fun. And good luck staying poor.

I seem to offend you, Bitcoin Gold is a joke, I never said that SHA-256 is a problem

I think this is what it all boils down to. The OP probably sold his Bitcoin betting on a shit-alternative like Bitcoin Gold and all that blather he writes is an after-the-fact rationalization to try to justify why he is right (despite the price) and those of us who sold the shitcoins in the forks to buy more Bitcoin are wrong.

I don't understand how you made that assumption. The coins will always be 21 million. Who said that segwit removed the signature data? How's that possible and how is it related with buying half of the goods?

So you're saying that only traders need this "byte" to confirm the transaction? The others don't?

Why segwit increases the rights of miners? It reduces the fee of the payer. Miners "print" money from the block reward, not from the transactions' fees. I guess this is what you meant.

This is clearly a subjective perspective. You can either spend your money and "let the dollar circulate", as would happen on a healthy capitalism, or keep them on your closet as a store of value. Although, last time I checked, store of value assets don't tend to inflate.

The "buying-coffee-with-bitcoin" dream has been forgotten years now. Especially to a coffee shop you've never entered before. The payee must ensure that you'll not double spend, so you'll have to wait for a confirmation. Even if you'd paid $50 as a fee, which would have very high priority right now, you'd still have to wait for 5-10 minutes on average to be confirmed. The lightning network, on the other hand can only work if you buy from that coffee shop everyday and close the channel at the end of the month (for example).

First of all, Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin's client. The way you've written it, is like it's another fork. Secondly, you're naming Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash "modified versions of bitcoin". This is false. Bitcoin Core is being developed from the Bitcoin Developers. Those who were chosen after Satoshi Nakamoto, the person(s) that began the so-called "Original Bitcoin". On the other hand, on Bitcoin Cash, some other developers decided that they don't like the way Bitcoin works and started a new chain in which its units aren't bitcoins.

The price of commodity on a completely free market, where the only rule is demand and supply is its value that has been given to it by the majority of those who sell it. This is my opinion. I'll agree with you that it can't look as a currency this way.

Investors don't change bitcoin. They try to make profit from it since it's a free market competition which means that it fluctuates a lot. There are people who invest in fiat too, but its price doesn't get affected that much, because it's not a free market competition. As for the investors' influence to other people: It has nothing to do with Bitcoin's "disappearance".

I already told you about the "coffee" dream. I want you, though, to notice something. Once you make a transaction it gets broadcasted to all these thousands of nodes. All these computers will save on their disk that you sent some satoshis to someone else and that you want it to be confirmed fast. How can this be cheap? I mentioned this, because that was the idea of bitcoin pre-segwit. When it "was" "still" "original". You'd have to understand that it'd be a matter of time before transaction cost became higher even if we're still on v0.1 with satoshi being active everyday.

If the user doesn't know about it, then he/she ought to learn! Except if he/she does not care about the funds' protection that much. Some things in life aren't simple, those are usually the most interesting.

So you're saying that you're wrong?

Uh oh.  Someone needs a lesson in consensus mechanisms.   ::)

Individuals do not get to act unilaterally and define what Bitcoin is.  Bitcoin is defined by those who secure the chain, either by running full non-mining nodes to enforce consensus rules or actively mining blocks.  Collectively, those users decide what Bitcoin is.  No single person is in a position of power or influence.  The consensus mechanism ensures everyone who is in agreement works on building a chain together.  Those who aren't in agreement and wish to enforce different rules won't be able to contribute to that chain.  If you want to start your own network excluding the Bitcoin features you personally disapprove of, feel free to fork yourself off the network and start your own chain.  

But you still won't be in any position to dictate terms to us.  You are a lonely voice on the fringes of irrelevance.

1. All transactions need to buy block bytes to confirm the transaction. Segwit reduces the number of bytes needed for the transaction. The bytes limit is the block size, and the expansion of the block is to increase the number of bytes.
Can’t increase the block size or reduce the required bytes because of the scarcity and high price.
The Bitcoin limit cannot be increased, and the block size should be the same.

2. In fact, miners get transaction fees. Increasing the block size will increase the number of transactions per block and the total fees,and lift the limit on the number of transactions confirmed by miners in each block.
The transaction volume is not bitcoin real purpose, and the basic rules cannot be changed in order to increase the transaction volume.

3. Buy coffee is just an example. Why do you want to talk about the confirmation time because you want to introduce the Lightning network?
That is, would you still fantasize about buying coffee with Bitcoin?

4. When the Bitcoin is controlled by core, it is bitcion core. This is normal. People will listen to experts, right?

5. The free market, have you ever bought stocks?
Investors try to make a profit, but investors are not disadvantaged. They will use all possible methods to increase prices. This is how the story comes about, making people believe that a certain price is profitable, right? This is different from the user. The user will say, can this work? Is it really necessary?

6. Rising transaction costs are normal, but they are treated abnormally. People try to eliminate this normality, this is absurd.
The increase in transaction costs before the hard-forks of bitcion cash is abnormal and is manipulated, so transaction costs will decrease afterwards. You believe in a free market, just like you believe that everyone is kind.
Hard fork is a manifestation of manipulation.

7. Thank you very much for reading the complete article. I seem to irritate some people, but I am just expressing my doubts and thoughts. As for those who want to make money with bitcoin, I did not say that bitcoin core or bitcoin cash will Decline, on the contrary I said that the price may be higher

This is correct, but this is inconsistent with reality nowadays. The influence of a single person exists. This is normal. I don’t object to this.


This is correct.

This is not why the block size cannot increase. The scarcity and the high price that is been given to 1 unit of Bitcoin is unrelated with the block size. It cannot change, because it's a consensus rule.

I'm just telling you that you can't use bitcoin for something that you do it everyday and you want it instantly. As for the Lightning Network, it was not created for that purpose exactly. It helps you make many micro-transactions by paying fees only once you open and close the channel. Definitely not for one purchase of coffee.

But it's not "controlled" by core. Bitcoin Core is an open-source Bitcoin client which is developed by the Bitcoin developers. There are many other bitcoin clients that do the same thing core does, but are not developed by them. (e.g: bitcoin knots (http://bitcoinknots.org/))

I only know that if the majority of its users see it as a medium of exchange it'll be a medium of exchange. If they see it as an investment, it'll be considered as an investment. Same thing for store of value. I personally find Bitcoin perfect store of value asset. Even if it is fluctuating, I believe that its price will continuously rise in the long term and thus, it will store my value above and beyond.

And you'll continue irritate them if you use the term "bitcoin core" instead of bitcoin. It's like telling us that "we" download BitTorrents to watch movies. There isn't just one torrent client, there's μTorrent, qBitTorrent, BitComet, BitLord, Vuze and many others. BitTorrent is the most popular one, but it doesn't "control" the way nodes distribute information. Torrent is just a protocol. Same thing happens with Bitcoin.

1. The block size cannot be changed, I totally agree. but block size is rule and related to the price.
2. The transaction method of Lightning Network is a supplement to Bitcoin transaction, not Bitcoin transaction method. Is this correct?
3. It is difficult for other clients to have an impact on Bitcoin
4. These are users and investors,is two different groups. Now investors dominate Bitcoin transactions, right?
5. Because the Bitcoin core team used influence to change the Bitcoin protocol rules, such as segwit.

How? How are these two related?

Lightning network has no direct effect to the bitcoin network. It's just a connection between two parties and a node in which they firstly make a transaction "locking" funds to a multi-signature address that needs both signatures to spend its outputs. Once you're done with the micro-payments you broadcast a transaction. So there nothing LN did to bitcoin. It's just an extra layer.

Of course it's difficult. The majority of the developers work on Bitcoin Core.

I don't know. Do you have a proof?

 While I am aware the we can express our own opinions and thoughts in these forum, there are some wrong beliefs that needs to be corrected. How come the original bitcoin ended last 2017? You mean, bitcoin today isn't the original one now? It's actually vague to understand that you seem in the contrary side and to criticize bitcoin in any way.
 
 
 You know what I see here? You seem to understand a bit at first but seems to the sideway afterwards. Yes, mines get their transaction fees but then you jumped into transaction volume and that's another activity to understand.

What exactly is OP's point because I don't have any plans to read that large black of text. How did bitcoin disappeared? What made bitcoin disappear? Why did bitcoin disappear? When did bitcoin disappear? These questions that I have laid needs only to answered with a concise because long paragraphs and sentences tends to trail off the topic and ending up not answering the question.

The OP has no points. He is just concern trolling to make a case that one of the forks deserve the rightful place as the dominant cryptocurrency of the future.
Seeing how he is trying to paint the picture of Core developers being demigods and calling it Bitcoin Core, I'd wager he is a ShitVision shill inspired by Faketoshi, the lord and master of gullible, wannabe OGs of this world.

Mine still exist....  Doesn't disappear :)

I need to explain what Bitcoin is, which makes me feel bad, especially after many years.

Bitcoin address: This is an account
Private key: This is a password
Public key: Allows everyone to verify the account password
Block: This is a piece of A4 paper with the transfer information of the account written on it

Miners: It is effective to use computing power to compete for whose A4 paper is valid. Record transaction information on the valid A4 paper, add rewards specified by the rules to yourself, charge byte fees, and spread the A4 paper to the bitcoin node network.

It's that simple. Some people say that the address is an invoice to weaken the importance of the address and interpret the concept of an account as a collection of all Bitcoin addresses (HD wallet)

Some people say that A4 paper is too small and we need larger paper. This is to change the block size (bitcoin cash)

Some people say that A4 paper is too small and we need to simplify the recording method. This is segwit (bitcoin core)

No one said that A4 paper and recording methods are our rules, and we don’t need to change the rules for more transactions (bitcoin is disappeared), there are no miners, no new blocks are generated

Changing the size will increase the miner right to record more transactions and increase the amount of A4 paper in the hands of the miner. Recording is power.

Segwit, let A4 paper have weight? is it necessary? Or the will of traditional currency issuers.

So, how did Bitcoin disappear

Unusually increase the price of Bitcoin, so that everyone is immersed in the joy of making money, and then create undue difficulties, and propose to change Bitcoin

They said that Bitcoin is great. If Bitcoin can be used for all transactions, how wonderful, we will have a decentralized world, and the price of Bitcoin will be higher. Who is against it?
No one objected, after all, the price is really increasing, and the transaction fee is too expensive.
Then, Bitcoin proposed Segwit.

Miners will of course agree, but this is not enough. China Miners want more A4 paper. Bitcoin cash appear. The will of traditional currency issuers?

If it is said that traditional currency issuers would watch Bitcoin compete for currency issuance rights and do nothing, that would be naive. For currency issuance rights, war can be waged and the president can be killed. Why can’t Bitcoin be murdered?

The sword used is the printed money. Who can stop Bitcoin holders from making money is the enemy, and whoever has bad intentions is the bad guy.
Because of money, higher prices, better stories (Lightning Network) to change Bitcoin.

The Lightning Network will not change the code of bitcoin core, because already have Segwit.
this will change the way people use Bitcoin, Rely on the channel or rely on the blockchain? Is bitcoin not on the blockchain?
Just like Bitcoin Cash Simple Ledger Protocol does not change any bitcoin cash code, but wants to put an elephant into the bedroom. Does the bedroom need an elephant?

In the world of truth, no one needs to be respected and no one needs to belittle anyone

i think bitcoin can only disappear when it loses the key to the wallet. and it can happen to anyone. besides, bitcoin is still very safe to use.

That's still just a long-winded way of saying that you aren't willing to respect consensus.  It doesn't matter how you attempt to justify your ideology.  Whether you blame it on speculation or a particular dev team doesn't make any difference.  The fact is people are choosing to run code that makes Bitcoin work the way it does.  If you want to take advantage of the network effects and security offered by Bitcoin's network, this is what you're signing up for.  If you don't want that, you can sacrifice security and network effects by using another blockchain.

Hi Cryptanalyst, Address and a private key aren't the same as the account and password. you can't change a private key as a password.

A4 paper can't do that. why you always write the wrong analogy?. a piece of A4 paper can't write the hundred-gigabyte block.

Of course, Bitcoin is nothing more than a store of value right now.

hello,
please help me because I don't know what to do anymore and I can't find a solution to my problem,
I had bitcoin sent to a wallet that was offline,
I know I was wrong but I only realized it after the transaction. bitcoin,
however, was successful anyway but I do not see the bitcoins received in my wallet, what can I do?
can i recover the bitcoins or are they lost forever?
do i have to download the whole blockchain?
if i log in with the same private keys elsewhere will i get my bitcoins back?
please help me,
the public key was this:
1L3DwZ2nBjU2Y91Ck1DkDKmBeg3XhWQm9o
thanks.

Bitcoin is supposed to be a technology, digital cash. It's becoming a speculative asset. It has a lot of cheerleaders, priests who subscribe to odd beliefs like hyperbitcoinization. They preach like religious leaders. They occasionally discuss the technology like Lightning. Lightning is supposed to make Bitcoin work for payments. That story is falling apart. Lightning isn't going anywhere. The leaders go back to preaching. The price has gone up dramatically. And it's probably going higher. If you own Bitcoin, you'll feel like winning a war.

Lightning Network aims to revolutionize the otherwise problematic transactions with bitcoin, part of the reason why its price keeps ballooning. You may be right with the idea that bitcoin couldn't become a currency basing it to the current stature of the market and the coin itself. But it could work very well as a store of value.

Actually both are a real function of money.Bitcoin is a store of value,and probably in the future,we are going to pay our bills with BTC,so I don't know where is the problem.
Bitcoin became a speculative tool,because of it's limited supply and increasing demand.This is just how the market works.
OP,your post is just a one big wall of text,that is full with endless whining.If you don't like Bitcoin just don't use it.
I don't want to discuss LN,Segwit and BCH hardfork,because I will have to write a wall of text and there's no point to discuss topics,that have been discussed years ago.

You should post new thread in corresponding section
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=39.0

I can say only this: sending bitcoin to offline or not synced wallet is pretty normal. You can sync your wallet anytime and the previous transactions shows up. You might check synced status of your address online for example here:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1L3DwZ2nBjU2Y91Ck1DkDKmBeg3XhWQm9o