|
Title: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: calkob on February 28, 2017, 11:53:37 AM I havnt seen this posted yet so i thought i would put it up, it is a great debate on scaling. Johnny makes some great arguments for segwit and the core side of things. and to be honest i can understand rogers point a little better now to. It is clear to see that he still loves Bitcoin and wants it to work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: Xester on February 28, 2017, 12:41:29 PM I havnt seen this posted yet so i thought i would put it up, it is a great debate on scaling. Johnny makes some great arguments for segwit and the core side of things. and to be honest i can understand rogers point a little better now to. It is clear to see that he still loves Bitcoin and wants it to work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY I have watch the video but still my mind did not change and I am still in favor with rogers idea. Staying with bitcoin and find solution and not relying on other parties to solve the problem. Miners can work out a solution to the current mining and confirmation problems on the bitcoin network without relying or resorting to segwit and LN. Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: franky1 on February 28, 2017, 01:05:02 PM clarity soft and hard is simply soft: pool only vote hard: nodes and pools vote below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains segwit doesnt offer 4mb of real usable space for everyone. segwit doesnt offer 4mb of real usable space instantly when activated the only way to get to 4mb is to get EVERYONE over to using segwit keys that also have extra bloated future features appended to the end of the tx in the future. such as segwit+confidential payment codes.. emphasis. its not just about getting all pools to be segwit, its not just about all nodes being segwit. its about ALL TRANSACTIONS using segwit keypairs (moving funds from old style addresses). before the benefits can be seen in full yep if 100% of users used segwit+confidential payment codes. then a segwit block will get a weight of 4mb yep if 100% of users used segwit without xtra features, then segwit bocks will gt a weight of ~2mb emphasis needs100% of users using segwit to see all the promises met but if people stay with native LEAN transactions (real data for data) you wont get as many transactions and wont have the bloat. however a hardfork consensus where the REAL block limit(not weight) is increased ALL transactions get extra room and more transaction flow segwit has not solved attack vectors. its just disarmed innocent sheep segwits 'features' which segwit has been over promising as fixes of mallicious things. can be bypassed very simply.. just use native transaction types. yep just not using a segwit key means that a person can still malleate and quadratic spam a block also although segwit nodes are programmed to be upstream of the network (centralised to the pools) to avoid an issue of segwit itself (anyonecanspend attack) a malicious user can MANUALLY copy an unconfirmed segwit transaction(from segwit) and paste it into an old node and mess with it... yep that is right. they can within the first 15 minutes Johny of blockstream just ripped apart his own colleagues trust of lightning..(lol) not verbatim 'because transactions are not on the blockchain confirmed you shouldnt trust them because pools can simply ignore them and not add them to a block'. making LN's close channel/settlement even in a blockstreamers eyes not trusted until its actually on the blockchain. which as a blockstreamer knowing that things can be messed around with in the mempool (just ignored via malice and recent additions RBF, CPFP) he assumes its ok to not do anything to reduce the risk and thinks increasing the risk of tx's not confirming is ok at an hour15min-1h 20min they were talking about mining. firstly asic manufacturers sell gear so that they can use profits to sell more gear and also because profits give the manufacturer free gear. so there is profit in meaning asics. where by the blockstreamer suggested that mining chip manufacturing is not profitable with the lame excuse that manufacturers would refuse to sell gear if it was profitable to just internally mine with what they produce. secondly the blockstreamer wanted to suggest that asic mining is centralised because there were only 4 manufacturers.. back in 2009-2011 it was either AMD or Intel back in 2012-2013 it was either Ati or Intel now its many more manufacturers.. bitmain canaan creative bitfury and anyone can make an asic privately more easily than trying to make something comparable to the CPU/GPU requirement of 2009-2013 even the circuitry is out their in the open far more so than making a complicated CPU/GPU in 2009-2013 . mining itself there are more POOLS now than 2012-14 those pools are not in just 20 physical locations. and the stratums are also distributed too so mining is less centralised as for blockstreamer johny. at 1:29:00-1:31:00 he actually argues that ethereum is very centralised because of proof-of-vitalik.. hmm sticking with that idea, but changing it slightly proof-of-gmaxwell!!!! if only the question was asked to johny and any blockstreamer. if gmaxwell moved over to BU and dropped core. how many blockstreamers would follow gmaxwell or stay with core. Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: hv_ on February 28, 2017, 03:21:52 PM Pretty useless discussion to me w/o any big miner techy guy inside.
First thing : What is really important ? If we could agree it's really scaling (otherwise I don't care) and we see the rest features all as 'nice to have' -> SegWit (allone) is not really about scaling (even admitted by BS fan-teams), but enables (maybe...) off-chain-scaling = 'nice-to-have' but for what price ? -> go ask miners first And yes - core is most advanced and best team on earth. Delivery is SW - only for 1 Year - no plan B ? Why ? Agenda ? Commitment ? Do they really use bitcoin on a day to day base ? Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: googlebtc on February 28, 2017, 03:29:33 PM lol, watching this debate helps me to see what's next on bitcoin
Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: manselr on February 28, 2017, 03:31:14 PM I havnt seen this posted yet so i thought i would put it up, it is a great debate on scaling. Johnny makes some great arguments for segwit and the core side of things. and to be honest i can understand rogers point a little better now to. It is clear to see that he still loves Bitcoin and wants it to work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY I have watch the video but still my mind did not change and I am still in favor with rogers idea. Staying with bitcoin and find solution and not relying on other parties to solve the problem. Miners can work out a solution to the current mining and confirmation problems on the bitcoin network without relying or resorting to segwit and LN. Given that BUcoin is a scam, the only way to scale anywhere notable is through segwit and LN. If you don't want that, then bitcoin remain as it is today (gold 2.0) and not a global currency. Im ok with it. I would rather have gold 2.0, than bitcoin ruined through roger ver's delusional antics. Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: franky1 on February 28, 2017, 03:42:17 PM my gripe is blockstream loves taking softfork best case scenario and hardfork worst case..
but blockstream will slap down anyone that even suggests an opinion of softfork worst case scenario and hardfork best case.. even though people like cores/blockstreams main technical boss(CTO) will happily bilateral split the softfork. even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation. i hate this because gmaxwell loves his monero and elements/liquid, aswell as his millions of fiat... not so much bitcoin. i feel gmaxwell doesnt care about bitcoins survival and has gone 'full wetard' into just treating bitcoin as 'an experiment' and testbed for things like hyperledger/elements. yet people are following gmaxwell, because of old outdated stuff he done before he got into the bankers pockets and changed motives. much like some people stick with the same doctor even if that doctor is now working for a profit making business rather than a national health service. and allowing bitcoin to change due to human emotion of trust of another human. without bothering to just read what code was wrote and what the actual codes does to the network. there is to much trust of human. and not much any care of reading understanding code or requsting the human to try a different type of code out of fear of being slapped by a human hand or offending a human. Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: gmaxwell on February 28, 2017, 05:22:13 PM i hate this because gmaxwell loves his monero I don't do anything with monero.Quote and elements/liquid, Elements and liquid use Bitcoin (well testnet Bitcoin and Bitcoin respectively.)Quote not so much bitcoin. I own a considerable amount of Bitcoin and am paid partially in Bitcoin.Quote i feel gmaxwell doesnt care about bitcoins survival and I feel like you are a paid shill trying to destroy Bitcoin. I probably have more evidence of that than you have to argue about me. Quote yet people are following gmaxwell, because of old outdated stuff he done before he got into the bankers pockets and changed motives. I am not paid by bankers. I am paid by a company I founded whos investors are not bankers. And many people are excited about work I've done that was funded by this company like Confidential Transactions and sidechains. Quote and allowing bitcoin to change due to human emotion of trust of another human. without bothering to just read what code was wrote and what the actual codes does to the network. The irony is that you're posting here nearly 24 hours a day arguing to change Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin is okay the way it is. Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: franky1 on February 28, 2017, 05:51:43 PM i hate this because gmaxwell loves his monero I don't do anything with monero.Other contact info: XMR: 43pCtCRUn6nRdvmpqzoHJy4NwFsRrEqywhjwfbiUqTtqBAHxCNzdctbHZjf1AZKtTkAjgKmhYgkqBU9 T4BEfAgBqKwK21M7 not so much bitcoin. I own a considerable amount of Bitcoin and am paid partially in Bitcoin.i feel gmaxwell doesnt care about bitcoins survival and yet people are following gmaxwell, because of old outdated stuff he done before he got into the bankers pockets and changed motives. I am not paid by bankers. I am paid by a company I founded whos investors are not bankers. so the fiat money is just magically there from some basement dweller.. and not from some financial institution...pfft.. keep trying. And many people are excited about work I've done that was funded by this company like Confidential Transactions and sidechains. which are not part of bitcoin. also you love to only circle yourself within a niche group of people that agree with you. you will only hear cheers and applauds towards you because you dont like to hear the negative. what you suffer from is called cabin fever its like a little girl who thinks she really is a princess because she is only listening to her biased dad complement her. so she starts to wear the dresses and acts the part to please those who complement her. and allowing bitcoin to change due to human emotion of trust of another human. without bothering to just read what code was wrote and what the actual codes does to the network. I think Bitcoin is okay the way it is.your buddy matt corallo changed the network topology (your words segwit node being upstream filter (hint: FIBRE) your other buddy is making the commercial LN hub mechanism so you can repay your investors with all them fee's your looking forward to making in LN the thing is those complimenting you have admitted they have not read the code or done much research.. their trust is in the "princess" not the actual code. you sold them a sales pitch and not revealed the small print in a manner they can read you also fail to be completely honest about segwit not being as promised. it wont fix the issues at activation it wont fix the issues purely by having 100% of pool using segwit nodes. it wont fix the issues purely by having 100% of pool using segwit nodes. it only fixes the issues IF(strong if) 100% p2wpkh/p2wsh key use.. which will never happen. malicious people will stick to using native transactions. meaning problem still exists Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: hv_ on February 28, 2017, 06:30:37 PM my gripe is blockstream loves taking softfork best case scenario and hardfork worst case.. but blockstream will slap down anyone that even suggests an opinion of softfork worst case scenario and hardfork best case.. even though people like cores/blockstreams main technical boss(CTO) will happily bilateral split the softfork. even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation. i hate this because gmaxwell loves his monero and elements/liquid, aswell as his millions of fiat... not so much bitcoin. i feel gmaxwell doesnt care about bitcoins survival and has gone 'full wetard' into just treating bitcoin as 'an experiment' and testbed for things like hyperledger/elements. yet people are following gmaxwell, because of old outdated stuff he done before he got into the bankers pockets and changed motives. much like some people stick with the same doctor even if that doctor is now working for a profit making business rather than a national health service. and allowing bitcoin to change due to human emotion of trust of another human. without bothering to just read what code was wrote and what the actual codes does to the network. there is to much trust of human. and not much any care of reading understanding code or requsting the human to try a different type of code out of fear of being slapped by a human hand or offending a human. The BS Core marketing campain in combination with reddit/bitcoin style has fully brainwashed some neutral individuals with the psychological and political useful trick to spread real fear about any HF. I wonder how they could logically conclude that if SW is not enough for on-chain scaling there is need for a HF,... Later ? WTF ? So the earlyier we do a HF the better and thanx to ETH we are alerted and prepared - we do better! But how on earth can this be done safely now at all with this psych fear anchor thrown ? I m really curious what this 'later' agenda looks like if BS Core needs to remove this fear by magic and initiate a good HF? SW yourself! Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: Carlton Banks on February 28, 2017, 06:33:47 PM The irony is that you're posting here nearly 24 hours a day arguing to change Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin is okay the way it is. At least one time, Franky posted for more than 24 hours consecutively. It's pretty obvious that there was more than 1 person posting using the Franky1 account that day, Franky2 and Franky3 presumably. The Franky on duty at the end of that day claimed that he doesn't need sleep Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: franky1 on February 28, 2017, 06:47:40 PM The BS Core marketing campain in combination with reddit/bitcoin style has fully brainwashed some neutral individuals with the psychological and political useful trick to spread real fear about any HF. I wonder how they could logically conclude that if SW is not enough for on-chain scaling there is need for a HF,... Later ? WTF ? So the earlyier we do a HF the better and thanx to ETH we are alerted and prepared - we do better! But how on earth can this be done safely now at all with this psych fear anchor thrown ? I m really curious what this 'later' agenda looks like if BS Core needs to remove this fear by magic and initiate a good HF? SW yourself! because the BS core army are deliberately talking about a harkfork umbrella term using the worse case bilateral fork subcategory.. with all the fake doomsdays and fake scares of calling anything not core an altcoin. (ethereum was not a real hard consensus fork. it was a intentional hard bilateral fork) later they will get some dude to magically wake people up and teach the community that CONSENSUS is different than BILATERAL(intentional) splits. and then reteach their sheep that a consensus fork was always possible and the BS core army can now do a consensus fork because they have now pulled some statistics out of their rear end that shows consensus is safe.. strangely the same as how 4mb is now magically safe even though 2mb was bad they have a road map of scripts of when an how to reveal their plot. but i just want them to man up reveal their agenda and just bypass this crappy delay stuff and get on with a proper bitcoin hard consensus vote that allows real onchain growth Title: Re: Johnny (of Blockstream) vs Roger Ver - Bitcoin Scaling Debate Post by: franky1 on February 28, 2017, 07:29:57 PM At least one time, Franky posted for more than 24 hours consecutively. It's pretty obvious that there was more than 1 person posting using the Franky1 account that day, Franky2 and Franky3 presumably. The Franky on duty at the end of that day claimed that he doesn't need sleep sorry to burst your bubble. but i am one person i just have the freedom to travel alot so my sleep habits change. this includes only sleeping in short periods and sporadically. it might be worth you going travelling one day and see beyond your cabin fever small lifestyle see different people, different cultures, gain an open mind beyond your bubble. |