Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: Wind_FURY on September 26, 2018, 06:48:12 AM



Title: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 26, 2018, 06:48:12 AM
I will try not to quote the whole letter because it is quite long for a forum post. Haha. But you can read it on this website, https://whensegwit.com/

But I will quote the important parts that the community, or the part of it that still cares, should read.

At any rate I believe that using the bech32 addresses will be very disruptive. Plus I would not recommend newbies to use it if they want to receive Bitcoins from everyone.

I honestly have some of my cold storage in a legacy address. Those UTXOs are before the Bitcoin Cash fork, which will have access to future hard forks, and they are more valuable in my opinion. I will not touch it.

As a user it is a hard decision. I hope more merchants will pledge to this cause to make it easier for the users. But the best thing to do is to help spread this message to your favorite merchant and your friends.

Quote
SegWit is an impressive upgrade that reduces transaction size and packs more transactions into the bitcoin network, which lowers fees and sets the foundation for future scaling prospects. Pretty much everybody who loves bitcoin agrees that the more we all use SegWit, the better off we’ll be.

Yet, surprisingly, SegWit is only utilized by around 40% of bitcoin transactions today. This means the throughput of the bitcoin network is not fully optimized. Available space is being wasted, which results in higher fees for everyone. Right now fees are fairly affordable, but it won’t be long until we see $50 transaction fees again, just like we did last year. So why hasn’t Segwit reached 100% adoption?

One reason could be a lack of sufficient incentives. The majority of current SegWit transactions are wrapped inside of an address format called P2SH, which is backwards-compatible with clients that don’t support SegWit. This allows the receiver of a transaction to utilize Segwit even if the sender doesn’t support it yet. This is a great way to let individual users do their own part to drive adoption forward, but it doesn’t do much to encourage the sender of the transaction to upgrade.

To all the bitcoiners out there, we encourage you to join us: share this page, start a discussion, be among the first to go full Bech32, and with your help, we'll get SegWit to 100% and take bitcoin to the moon.
Bech32 is a new address format created specifically for SegWit. It allows the direct use of SegWit without the wrapper, on top of other improvements, but is not backwards compatible with clients that don’t support SegWit. The hope for SegWit, as shared by Andreas Antonopoulos (@aantonop), Peter Wuille (@pwuille), and many other industry insiders, is to transition fully to Bech32 and move away from wrapping SegWit transactions in P2SH.

The fact that Bech32 isn’t backwards compatible can actually be used as a tool to speed up adoption. If we can rapidly establish Bech32 as the default address format, and discourage the use of P2SH addresses, we can create a temporary rift where senders are obliged to upgrade their software in order to serve receiving customers. The good news is that sending to a Bech32 address isn’t a particularly challenging feature to implement, making the transition reasonably straightforward. Indeed, BRD has had this capability since early 2018.

One could argue SegWit isn’t yet at 100% because there is little reason to move away from backwards-compatible address formats. Thus, we propose the need to “break” bitcoin by dropping support for these formats altogether, creating a compelling reason for both senders and receivers to upgrade their support of bitcoin and let it become the best it can be.

To do our part, the BRD crypto wallet will convert to 100% Bech32 receive addresses. Support will start with an opt-in period beginning in October 2018, allowing all forward-thinking pioneers to take the plunge into the new Bech32 world and turn their smartphones into a pure SegWit machine. Shortly thereafter, these changes will be rolled out to our entire user base as the default setting.
In preparation of this transition, it is important to get as many companies and services as possible to start supporting Bech32. We are proud to have already secured pledges from 5 of our valued partners—Changelly, Simplex, Kraken, Coinberry, and Coinify—to update their software and enable the ability to send to Bech32 to continue serving our customers.





Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 26, 2018, 12:53:00 PM
I agree that a forced conversion will be disruptive, but I can see why they are doing it and props to them for taking the initiative on this.

I think the real issue here is education. I would wager that a significant proportion, probably even a majority, of Bitcoin users don't understand the difference between legacy and Segwit, and even less know the difference between Bech32 and P2SH. I was certainly guilty of this when I first got involved in crypto - it's easy just to buy from an exchange and send to a wallet without having really any idea about what you are doing.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 26, 2018, 01:02:49 PM
oh wind_fury.. your not a coder. so why are you promoting such scheme without you yourself actually putting in the effort of understanding the ramifications.

forced change!! have you not learned anything.

also the data efficiency of transactions to bytes is not efficient using segwit
segwit signatures are 82bytes instead of 72
segwit addresses are a few bytes longer too

a transaction of X inputs and Y outputs consumes more bytes with segwit than with legacy.

all segwit does it cut and hide some data from the baseblock and hold it else where to make it look like a data saving. but its not a data saving. that hidden data does actually sit on hard drives and does actually take up space. even if devs have coded the base block not to count it.. (meaning the 1mb base limit is a fiction now because its got nothing to do with enforcing 1mb of full data going to hard drives.. thus serves no purpose for hard drive data limiting)


if we were to take away the baseblock limit and let legacy utilise the 4mb 'weight' you will see we can fit in more legacy transactions than segwit transactions.

also because segwit needs part of its data in the baseblock. by removing the 1mb limit. also allow more segwit transactions in the 4mb weight too.. and no longer use the 3mb weight as just the separate area for hidden signatures. but instead to utilise all 4mb for fully combined transaction data.

its far better to get rid of the 1mb limit to up the transaction count of both legacy AND segwit, than trying to enforce a tyranny of making users only transact a certain way

as for pretending that it will help pricing of TX's
devs are actually messing with 'dust' and 'minrelay' fee's to push up the price..
even though the market rate of btc goes up. the dust/minrelay should be coded to go DOWN. but they push up those. and then they gave the bait of a discount only to segwit.

segwit does not actually achieve a real transaction byte efficiency on a hard drive. and if they actually reduced the min fee code when market settle at higher value then the transaction prices would be lower.
to devs its like raising the price of a banana and then sticking a discount sticker for only loyalty card holders

EG. bread 2009 £$0.50.....
retailers inflation..
      bread 2018 £$2 'only 50cents to walmart loyalty card holders'


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: DooMAD on September 26, 2018, 01:20:08 PM
oh wind_fury.. your not a coder. so why are you promoting such scheme without you yourself actually putting in the effort of understanding the ramifications.

I wasn't aware that being a coder was some sort of mandatory prerequisite to contribute to the conversation.  Many people arguably prefer Wind_FURY's insights over your own, so let's play nice, okay?


its far better to get rid of the 1mb limit to up the transaction count of both legacy AND segwit, than trying to enforce a tyranny of making users only transact a certain way

In your opinion.  Clearly the breadwallet devs (who, being coders, you clearly concede have the right to make that determination) disagree with you on that part.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 26, 2018, 01:36:27 PM
( ^ here comes the onslaught of social group defence and no rebuttle of the transaction per byte of hard drive data inefficiency.)

anyway, ignoring the social drama..
if people care about the network protocol and want to do something to actually allow more transactions per block
here some idea's to promote instead

1. schnorr benefits multisig. so yea use schnorr to impact multisigs and let that benefit those wanting to move funds into LN...
    (ensuring LN remains only a voluntary side service. and not a forced 'got to use' forced thing)
2. reduce the unneeded maxsignop limit which allows 1 transaction to hoard 20% of a block (also reduces linear validation fears)
3. remove the 1mb block to allow fully combined transactions to utilise 4mb weight (improves tx count way more than segwits split block strategy)
4. bring down the dust/min relay to amounts that are 4x lower than 2015 levels and that includes doing it for legacy
(infact it should be more than 6x due to the settling(average) market price difference of 2015-2018)

then we will see more transaction availability and cheaper prices per transaction. without forcing people into addresses types

and if anyone is going to rebut "but what about malleation" well new/reactivated opcodes being added actually reintroduce transaction malleability into segwit transactions.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: amishmanish on September 26, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
Considering the legacy addresses valuable because they will access the forks is tricky. If we go by this logic, then most "Old businesses" will have their majority funds in Legacy addresses too. Why would they be willing to pay the opportunity cost of forks?
What is understandable is older users wanting to keep their cold-storage wallets as a "Fixed asset", only to be used in an emergency or in the hyperbitcoinization scenario. Avoiding the obvious headache of moving 100s of BTC to a new address may also be one of the reasons.

I just hope that accessing forks is the least of their worries.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: pawanjain on September 26, 2018, 03:10:38 PM
The approach towards 100% adoption of SegWit looks good to me but I hardly believe this will work. There are thousands of people involved in crypto yet only a few know what all of this is all about. Most of the people holding crypto are just here for the sake of money and hence don't know much of the technical aspects of cryptocurrencies. Just think what if a person having a bech32 address sends/receives bitcoin to/from a non SegWit compatible address.
Things like these might create bigger problems and hence forcing people to use it won't be any good unless they know what they are doing.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: squatter on September 26, 2018, 07:41:39 PM
At any rate I believe that using the bech32 addresses will be very disruptive. Plus I would not recommend newbies to use it if they want to receive Bitcoins from everyone.

I honestly have some of my cold storage in a legacy address. Those UTXOs are before the Bitcoin Cash fork, which will have access to future hard forks, and they are more valuable in my opinion. I will not touch it.

I wouldn't either. In fact, I think Breadwallet and many other people are laying this on a bit thick.

The whole point of backward compatible updates is that they allow for a smooth transition at the cost of fast adoption. I'm slightly annoyed when I see people rushing others to adopt a voluntary upgrade. One of the reasons Segwit was acceptable to users like me is that it was a soft fork, where I could take my time to upgrade. I prefer other people to be the guinea pigs first.

The P2SH-wrapper was meant to be a transitional stage. I say, embrace the transition. 40% adoption -- without Blockchain.info and others -- is pretty damn good! No need to rush things. I use bech32 addresses for day-to-day transactions, but they're not where most of my funds are stored, and I don't care what other people do. I also agree with this:

Quote
I would not recommend newbies to use it if they want to receive Bitcoins from everyone.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: o_e_l_e_o on September 26, 2018, 08:49:32 PM
I prefer other people to be the guinea pigs first.

I can fully accept that, but we are now over a year down the line. It took 6 months to hit 30% SegWit transactions, and another 6 months to climb from 30% to 40%. If we just sit and wait it could be 5+ years before we reach anything near full adoption.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 26, 2018, 10:31:11 PM
I prefer other people to be the guinea pigs first.

I can fully accept that, but we are now over a year down the line. It took 6 months to hit 30% SegWit transactions, and another 6 months to climb from 30% to 40%. If we just sit and wait it could be 5+ years before we reach anything near full adoption.

if you actually take the data. and count the tx in's and outs. and see which are 'iswitness'. segwit utilisation is actually only 24% that are 'is witness'

as for utility. if you realise that segwit signatures and addresses are longer (wasting a few bytes) that byte per transaction if they were converted to legacy and allowed to utilise the full 4mb all data included. legacy is more efficient

its like having a 225gram banana taking off its 72gram skin. then adding 15 grams of yellow paint to the banana to identify it as a special banana. and then adding 10grams of paint to the 72gram skin... all so that in one box you can say the banana in box 1 is now 168grams.. but if you want a fully validatable banana and store it as a fully validatable and relayable banana you have to take the other box of skins with you.. which makes the total combined banana weight 250grams.. not 225grams

meaning yea for every 3rd banana you strip you can slide in a 4th stripped banana in the box.
but 4 fully validated combined special bananas is now 1kg(672g+328g)
where as 4 legacy bananas would be 900gram for 4 bananas

again the wishy washy nonsense of "but box 1 is only 672g".. but ignoring the second box that must go with the first box

2boxes=1kg..
1legacy box 900g
'but ignore box 2 and segwit is 672g' (facepalm)

again if the 4mb block was fully open for full transaction data
legacy=17777 tx of 225byte
segwit=16000tx of 250byte

.. the 2 box (1mb:3mb)
legacy=4444 tx of 225 with 0 in box two
segwit=5952 tx in box one. 0.488mb in box 2

so segwit with the 1mb wall is limiting segwit by 10,048tx as you cant put any extra in due to the 1mb wall
and as i said take the limit out. and legacy again offers more

keeping the 1mb is not a 4x capacity growth at all

its all just wishy washy crap


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: pooya87 on September 27, 2018, 04:31:08 AM
At any rate I believe that using the bech32 addresses will be very disruptive. Plus I would not recommend newbies to use it if they want to receive Bitcoins from everyone.

that is only true for "receiving" bitcoin not "sending" it. and as you already know you don't have to have only one bitcoin address or even one wallet. you can have as many as you like.
you can have a Bech32 address for sending bitcoin and a Base58 P2PKH address to receive bitcoin. then when you want to spend from that Base58 address you each time send the change to your Bech32 address(es) and have that as your main address. and whenever it is accepted anywhere you just use that.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: ImHash on September 27, 2018, 05:03:40 AM
meaning yea for every 3rd banana you strip you can slide in a 4th stripped banana in the box.
but 4 fully validated combined special bananas is now 1kg(672g+328g)
where as 4 legacy bananas would be 900gram for 4 bananas

again the wishy washy nonsense of "but box 1 is only 672g".. but ignoring the second box that must go with the first box

2boxes=1kg..
1legacy box 900g
'but ignore box 2 and segwit is 672g' (facepalm)

again if the 4mb block was fully open for full transaction data
legacy=17777 tx of 225byte
segwit=16000tx of 250byte

.. the 2 box (1mb:3mb)
legacy=4444 tx of 225 with 0 in box two
segwit=5952 tx in box one. 0.488mb in box 2

so segwit with the 1mb wall is limiting segwit by 10,048tx as you cant put any extra in due to the 1mb wall
and as i said take the limit out. and legacy again offers more

keeping the 1mb is not a 4x capacity growth at all
I really like your analogies :D Using bananas and their skins to compare them to bitcoin transactions. Which part of the banana is bitcoin and which part is the address? Which part is the actual data and which part is unspent bitcoin? You make this sound like whoever designed segwit is an imbecile, They are not, If everyone uses segwit then there will be no need for the second box to exist, Second box only exist because people are still using legacy, They haven't upgraded to segwit nodes yet. When everyone does that, You'll have only pealed bananas without any paint.
Why don't you talk about the space for the second boxes in segwit without actually having them on board? You should also talk about the new possibilities if segwit were fully adopted by everyone, Every node. What you are saying is that we should make the bitcoin network big enough to have room for the banana skins while they're on the bananas, People don't eat the skin, They throw them away after they peal the bananas, So why should we keep the skins when we can peal them away just to keep the real deal for when we need to eat the real thing?
Having to go with this analogy would make things much difficult to explain, But I did my best to make it simple for the noobs and such.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 05:35:29 AM
a good test to see if the community really want it..
breadwallet should ask BTCC pool (the biggest segwit promoter of 2015-2017) to start using segwit as its address to receive its blockrewards..

its been a year and even they have not done so yet
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000d5996219bc24e4f98c6113c2b29c7a5283e181b631730
-> 13TET...
not
-> bc1q

hmmmm

i might also add this.. and just let people who keep promoting 40%.. to take a few steps back and realise. segwit is not as popular as they thought
https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1
(hint: 0.764% of al btc is stored on a bech address (132k coins))
(unspent outputs = ~80k of 50million)

seems just as fast as people put funds into addresses starting bc1q, they take them out

hmmmm


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 05:55:16 AM
I really like your analogies :D Using bananas and their skins to compare them to bitcoin transactions. Which part of the banana is bitcoin and which part is the address? Which part is the actual data and which part is unspent bitcoin?
the banana(fruit) is the input, value output value
the skin is the signature/scripts

segwit addresses (bc1q) is the layer of paint added to the fruit to add a few xtra bytes to the data
the layer of paint added to the skin is the extra few bytes th signature uses

You make this sound like whoever designed segwit is an imbecile, They are not,
they went a whole 2 years coding something that doesnt offer real scaling.
If everyone uses segwit then there will be no need for the second box to exist, Second box only exist because people are still using legacy, They haven't upgraded to segwit nodes yet. When everyone does that, You'll have only pealed bananas without any paint.
no... you still nee the skins to verify the transaction is valid.. and also when someone else is syncing from you. they need the skins so they can validate their copy FULLY AND INDEPENDENTLY

as i said if you put the skin back on a segwit tx is 250bytes not 225 like its comparative legacy
so if there was no 2 box and just 1 big box..... segwit vs legacy would if utilising the entire 4mb
be like this
legacy=17777 tx of 225byte
segwit=16000tx of 250byte
as best case scenario

Why don't you talk about the space for the second boxes in segwit without actually having them on board? You should also talk about the new possibilities if segwit were fully adopted by everyone, Every node. What you are saying is that we should make the bitcoin network big enough to have room for the banana skins while they're on the bananas, People don't eat the skin, They throw them away after they peal the bananas, So why should we keep the skins when we can peal them away just to keep the real deal for when we need to eat the real thing?
if your a full node.. you are part of the relay network. you need to show the skin to show the fruit is ripe (legit/valid)
yes people can prune the skin(signatures) . but then they are not part of the blockchain relay/archival network
new nodes wont sync via you because you dont have the signatures for them to self check and validate the blocks they get.

you become just a midweight node(gmax buzzword downstream.. luke jr: filtered). only relaying transactions and the latest block(as long as u dont prune it first). and not helping new users sync up and be part of the network.
EG legacy nodes(<0.13) are not full nodes. they dont get the signatures. they get the peeled banana version and they blindly trust someone else validated the block and blindly pass it on as good. (critical security alert if there was a bug)

if you think deleting the signatures is good.. then maybe you might aswell turn off your full node and just use a litewallet

Having to go with this analogy would make things much difficult to explain, But I did my best to make it simple for the noobs and such.

again with the 2box trick your not getting 16k-17k transactions your only getting
.. the 2 box (1mb:3mb)
legacy=4444 tx of 225 with 0 in box two
segwit=5952 tx in box one. 0.488mb in box 2

segit uses 1.488mb for 5952 basic transaction..
so same basic transaction
same 1.488mb space but as space a legacy can fully utilise
is: 6612 legacy transactions for 1.488mb

but yea. i know you want peeled banana's to make it look good.. but then your not a full node(as explained) so go play with a lite wallet and not have any block data to worry about because you trust other nodes to tell you the skin is ripe


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 27, 2018, 06:03:08 AM
oh wind_fury.. your not a coder. so why are you promoting such scheme without you yourself actually putting in the effort of understanding the ramifications.

But yet you, who acts like you're smarter than everyone, lies and resorts to gaslighting in every argument.

Quote
forced change!! have you not learned anything.

I know the ramifications. Read my OP. Did I say "Hurray! Do it!"?

Quote
also the data efficiency of transactions to bytes is not efficient using segwit
segwit signatures are 82bytes instead of 72
segwit addresses are a few bytes longer too


Start a topic in development and technical discussion. I want to see you debate with the real developers.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: jseverson on September 27, 2018, 06:25:46 AM
a transaction of X inputs and Y outputs consumes more bytes with segwit than with legacy.

I just want to point out that Breadwallet's main reasoning behind their open letter is actually lower fees, and lower block weight resulting in more transactions per block than just legacy. You may be right that Segwit is actually more inefficient memory-wise, but they're not at all commenting on where development should be, or should have headed -- just that Segwit has lower fees now.

I'm against forced updates as much as any other person, but this seems more like a plea than a forced order. People really should do their own research before upgrading though.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Pursuer on September 27, 2018, 06:31:06 AM
Quote
also the data efficiency of transactions to bytes is not efficient using segwit
segwit signatures are 82bytes instead of 72
segwit addresses are a few bytes longer too

Start a topic in development and technical discussion. I want to see you debate with the real developers.

this part at least is not something you need a developer to debate! it is easy and very obvious. he is correct. SegWit transactions add extra bytes to the transactions for the 00 flag, the size of witness at the end,... you can check a SegWit transaction yourself and see. but the problem with that comment is that it is only focusing on one part and that being the size of a tx. and the difference however is not that big!

SegWit was never meant for scaling alone. SegWit was meant to do multiple things such as fixing malleability problem and in addition to that it was meant to increase capacity with a soft fork maintaining backward compatibility so we don't need to hard fork.
then that malleability fix can open up room for other development such as a much more secure LN on top of bitcoin.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 06:32:01 AM
oh wind_fury.. your not a coder. so why are you promoting such scheme without you yourself actually putting in the effort of understanding the ramifications.
But yet you, who acts like you're smarter than everyone, lies and resorts to gaslighting in every argument.

lies?
kinda funny..
i actually go out of my way to do the math. i even post in examples, stats and other things.
did you even check the link about the UTXO set
UTXO DATA CANT LIE
its stuck in the blockchain.. its literally above the laws of truth that cant be edited..

but hey. when others who just say "he lies".. they can never actually back it up .. they just say "wrong because wrong"
wow such powerful proof.

ok you called me a liar.. so.. show me a UTXO set that has 20 million segwit addresses(40%)
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 40% segwit utility
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 30% segwit utility

the only parts people cant agree on is my method of explaining.
i try to keep it simple using analogies or rounding numbers for simple math demo purposes. then get some anal social drama queens try knitpicking my ELI-5 explanations without taking it all into context of simple explanation

i understand you are new to segwit and still learning. but these discussions with me devs and others have been going on for a couple years now. so yea sometimes when a non-dev gets involved and tries social drama distractions of name calling by poking the bear.. yea i bite..

Quote
forced change!! have you not learned anything.

I know the ramifications. Read my OP. Did I say "Hurray! Do it!"?

Quote
also the data efficiency of transactions to bytes is not efficient using segwit
segwit signatures are 82bytes instead of 72
segwit addresses are a few bytes longer too


Start a topic in development and technical discussion. I want to see you debate with the real developers.

i have done.
but they just send in their non-dev buddies to social drama the topic to death.
but just so you know. devs have once they put their personal attack hats on the floor and start wearing their critical thinking caps. end up changing some code or plans.

the funny thing is. segwit and LN is not open dev desired. its actually contracted employed code that benefits financial investors that contracted them to make bitcoin LN compatible.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 06:34:25 AM
SegWit was never meant for scaling alone. SegWit was meant to do multiple things such as fixing malleability problem and in addition to that it was meant to increase capacity with a soft fork maintaining backward compatibility so we don't need to hard fork.
then that malleability fix can open up room for other development such as a much more secure LN on top of bitcoin.

this is not me poking the bear or countering anything you have to say.
but now devs are adding/reactivating some opcodes that reintroduce malleability attacks done using bech addresses...

(i just thought that was something funny worth adding to your point)

the devs know all about it. and they were wanting to rename a few opcodes with warnings.
(they had to take a few steps back and re-think a few things)


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 06:38:10 AM
a transaction of X inputs and Y outputs consumes more bytes with segwit than with legacy.

I just want to point out that Breadwallet's main reasoning behind their open letter is actually lower fees, and lower block weight resulting in more transactions per block than just legacy. You may be right that Segwit is actually more inefficient memory-wise, but they're not at all commenting on where development should be, or should have headed -- just that Segwit has lower fees now.

I'm against forced updates as much as any other person, but this seems more like a plea than a forced order. People really should do their own research before upgrading though.

its not lower fee's
dont you get it.
its like walmart.. raise the prices via increasing(not decreasing) the minrelay/dust..
and then put a sticky label on that says 'rollback' 75% off if your a walmart loyalty card holder

the relay/dust should be 10x lower than they were in 2015.. they are not. infact they are higher than 2015
then ontop they x4 legacy transactions prices..

its a bait and switch


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: NeuroticFish on September 27, 2018, 06:49:12 AM
Since I understood Franky's point (from another thread), I will return to the proposal.

Quote
be among the first to go full Bech32, and with your help, we'll get SegWit to 100% and take bitcoin to the moon.

And .. hmm.. no, it's not the right direction imho.
If I'd migrate to bc1 address, there would be services unable to pay me. Then why do that? To .. force the services? Good one.

Somebody would have to convince the services migrate to SegWit. (Which is a tough job, since some important ones have Roger's tail wrapped in)
Until then, sorry, legacy SegWit is just the proper way imho.

(And yes, old 1x are still the proper way for cold storage or paper wallets. Safety 1st.)


The way to convince people is also not ok. I know that since I have SegWit address, if I send to another SegWit address, my transaction has a good chance to go faster for about the same money. This should be the direction to convince people. But again, the various services should do this change themselves, else we gained nothing.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 07:10:18 AM
maybe requesting the big segwit promoters to act first.

after 2 years of endless 'segwit is perfect solution, well tested blah blah blah'... well
(i know it was only activated in 2017. but since 2015-16 they been saying how great it is working on testnets and how perfect it is)

btcc
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000d5996219bc24e4f98c6113c2b29c7a5283e181b631730
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

LukeJR
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3318
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

achow101
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=290195
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

theymos
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

.....
and now the cherry on top

the main guy.. the segwit code master himself.. pieter wuille(sipa)
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
Tips and donations: 1Nrohb....


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 27, 2018, 08:15:51 AM
oh wind_fury.. your not a coder. so why are you promoting such scheme without you yourself actually putting in the effort of understanding the ramifications.
But yet you, who acts like you're smarter than everyone, lies and resorts to gaslighting in every argument.

lies?
kinda funny..
i actually go out of my way to do the math. i even post in examples, stats and other things.
did you even check the link about the UTXO set
UTXO DATA CANT LIE
its stuck in the blockchain.. its literally above the laws of truth that cant be edited..

but hey. when others who just say "he lies".. they can never actually back it up .. they just say "wrong because wrong"
wow such powerful proof.

ok you called me a liar.. so.. show me a UTXO set that has 20 million segwit addresses(40%)
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 40% segwit utility
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 30% segwit utility

the only parts people cant agree on is my method of explaining.
i try to keep it simple using analogies or rounding numbers for simple math demo purposes. then get some anal social drama queens try knitpicking my ELI-5 explanations without taking it all into context of simple explanation

Yes lies and you gaslight. It is all over the forum. Many people do not take you seriously anymore because they believe that you are a troll or a shill. I think that I'm the only one left that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, but do not mistake that for stupdity. I listen because I want to learn from all sides. But if there are lies and half truths here and there, I will call them out.

But if I made a mistake, then call me out. I will admit to have made it. I AM the stupid one, right?

Quote
i understand you are new to segwit and still learning. but these discussions with me devs and others have been going on for a couple years now. so yea sometimes when a non-dev gets involved and tries social drama distractions of name calling by poking the bear.. yea i bite..

You and the developers? I believe they avoid in having a discussion with you?

Quote
Quote
forced change!! have you not learned anything.

I know the ramifications. Read my OP. Did I say "Hurray! Do it!"?

Quote
also the data efficiency of transactions to bytes is not efficient using segwit
segwit signatures are 82bytes instead of 72
segwit addresses are a few bytes longer too


Start a topic in development and technical discussion. I want to see you debate with the real developers.

i have done.
but they just send in their non-dev buddies to social drama the topic to death.
but just so you know. devs have once they put their personal attack hats on the floor and start wearing their critical thinking caps. end up changing some code or plans.

the funny thing is. segwit and LN is not open dev desired. its actually contracted employed code that benefits financial investors that contracted them to make bitcoin LN compatible.

There we go again. Argue why it is technically inferior compared to your preferred bigger blocks approach, do not make all those accusations that are bordering on delusion. You are the smart one, right?


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: audaciousbeing on September 27, 2018, 08:47:22 AM
There is no doubt that SegWit is a great development that have brought sanity to the bitcoin space by reducing the transaction fees by a great length but for me, I don't think it worth the news about people should be coerced, begged or given some incentives in other to do the right thing. Its not that difficult. I have said it countless number of times, what most people are interested in is what would make more money in their wallet and not about the technicalities that surrounds SegWit itself. The time of high fees will still return just as being quoted in the open letter and when that happen, nobody would need to be encouraged to use SegWit. They will be forced to ask questions. I just hope that by that time, threads about discussion on transaction fees on the forum would be shredded immediately because there is time to be ready for the future now and only 40% are utilizing such opportunity.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Pursuer on September 27, 2018, 09:04:49 AM
(And yes, old 1x are still the proper way for cold storage or paper wallets. Safety 1st.)

wrong.
the proper way for cold storage is still (1) creating a private key offline on a clean computer with a legit software (2) printing that private key in a right way as in not leaving traces on printer memory, possibly encrypting the key, laminating the paper for endurance (3) storing multiple copies.

the address is only the type of output that was created. there is no difference between the keys that you are storing. you are still storing the same private key when it comes to cold storage.

you can even use the same tools such as bitaddress.org to generate the private key then get the public key and then very easily convert that public key (which will be 100% safe since it is public key not private key) to a bech32 address.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 09:20:56 AM
LN is not bitcoin
LN is not even blockchain
LN is a separate network. like ripple

bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible
litecoin had to change to be LN compatible

if LN was to be a sole feature of bitcoin then LN would get designed around bitcoin, not the other way round.

i know your new to this, but these discussions have gone on for years.
anyway
LN is not following the ethos of bitcoin or litecoin. LN has an ethos of their own. they will accept multiple coins and will try to lock funds in and try not to get people to broadcast transactions back to the chain..
they try promoting that as their benefit.
(using a factory(fortknox) means you give the unbroadcasted tx back to the factory and they resupply you with a new unbroadcast tx to re-migrate/balance your funds across the channels)
but if you follow golds history of bank notes you will see the whole game plan.
i know your probably going to twist it into how fabulous that sounds to never need to use the blockchain. but look how that turned out for people that had gold in 19th century, before banking it

remember: "if it aint your sole control private key, it aint your coin"

bitcoin in-> play with promissory notes--> crappy brass, nickel and copper coins(altcoins) out because they are cheaper and faster to transact with onchain
(when you hear bitcoin devs themselves say bitcoin is broke/cant scale.. so heres a bank-esq payment model...you know something is up)

how is LN inferior (i already mentioned the whole byte bloat of segwit inferiority. and how opcodes will add malleation in segwit)
1. its not a push payment. its a 'if other users are only, get everyone involved to sign' payment system
2. its not a pay direct. its a 'set up funds that go on average 5 different directions incase someones asleep'
3. its not community audited. thus tampering/thefts/blackmail do(and have) happen
4. because of routing, you have to share your funds with others
5. its not sole control. it co-signed

as for the employment contract of november 2016 with a deadline of november2017..
check the dates of the Bip
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg04294.html
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
"For Bitcoin mainnet, the BIP9 starttime will be midnight 15 november 2016 UTC (Epoch timestamp 1479168000) and BIP9 timeout will be midnight 15 november 2017 UTC (Epoch timestamp 1510704000). "
oh and by the way

check their payday
https://www.crunchbase.com/funding_round/blockstream-undisclosed--0e4380a7
PS they wanted their funds in BTC so the investors had to buy $25m of coin... now go check the market chart for mid november 2017 (heres a hint the buyup started november 12th. finished in november.. (everything after that was just community reaction)


as for calling me troll shill 'wrong because wrong'. thats just because they cant actually counter me using hard data so resort to name calling and insults.. yea sometimes when they poke i bite. but i do try to entertain them with statistics and data which they cant counter. so they resort to putting their head in the sand

i even use data direct from the source itself. like sipa and lukeJR and gmax
P.S (the bilateral split.. thats a term gmaxwell used.. not me)

i have tried to ask them to learn a few things before replying or sitting back and having a coffee, relaxing and think of things critically before replying. i think even you are aware that i try. yea i dont say it in a cuddly way. but doesnt mean it wasnt said

but a couple years on .. and some dont know the basic concepts of consensus, multisig anyonecanspend which has been the main things they argue about and pretend dont apply to things like segwit LN and bitcoin. (facepalm)

but in the end its their own ignorance harming only them. but when they try entering a discussion and dont actually show data and statistics and just point fingers at altcoins and personalities and call names.. again they are making themselves look bad as people who care about bitcoin.. and their only goal is to look good for their lil boys club of like minded cabin fever group

im not interested in their kardashian drama they read about on reddit. social name calling and pointing at altcoins is not related in anyway to protecting the bitcoin network. but its the only rebuttle they have

i care about the network and the control paradigm being played out that is reducing bitcoins utility and ethos into a currency that needs co-managed banking (facepalm)

anyway i do hope you can brush off the wishy washy mindsets that want co-managed accounts. and instead realise that bitcoin can scale onchain. and that legacy transactions can offer more transactions per byte if they just removed the 1mb wall wishy washy trick code


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: colvis on September 27, 2018, 10:06:48 AM
I concur that a constrained transformation will be problematic, however I can perceive any reason why they are doing it and props to them for stepping up with regards to this.

I think the main problem here is instruction. I would bet that a noteworthy extent, likely even a lion's share, of Bitcoin clients don't comprehend the distinction among heritage and Segwit, and even less know the contrast somewhere in the range of Bech32 and P2SH. I was surely blameworthy of this when I originally got associated with crypto - it's simple just to purchase from a trade and send to a wallet without having extremely any thought regarding what you are doing


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Kakmakr on September 27, 2018, 11:13:55 AM
I predicted that we will have this kind of Betamax vs VHS scenario in the future and the longer this is drawn out, the bigger the impact will be. Knowing this, we should learn from what happened with Betamax vs VHS and in the end accept that the supporting industry would decide what the consumers will use. <Most of them do not know the difference>  ::)

A consortium of supporting services will decide on one of the implementations and the consumers will follow.  ::)


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: BrewMaster on September 27, 2018, 11:54:07 AM
LN is a separate network. like ripple
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible

now that's just absurd.
LN is not completely a separate network. it is a network strongly connected to bitcoin network. and calling it "like ripple" is just dumb. on Ripple network everything is centralized. even if it looks any other way. you holding private keys to Ripple addresses means nothing since they can spend your coins if they wanted to like they did once before. but you holding your bitcoin private keys and using LN means you are in control.

as for "change", LN could have been built on top of bitcoin that was before easily but the problem was the malleability that made it insecure and that much harder to use LN in a safe way.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 12:05:56 PM
LN is a separate network. like ripple
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible

now that's just absurd.
LN is not completely a separate network. it is a network strongly connected to bitcoin network. and calling it "like ripple" is just dumb. on Ripple network everything is centralized. even if it looks any other way. you holding private keys to Ripple addresses means nothing since they can spend your coins if they wanted to like they did once before. but you holding your bitcoin private keys and using LN means you are in control.

as for "change", LN could have been built on top of bitcoin that was before easily but the problem was the malleability that made it insecure and that much harder to use LN in a safe way.

1. LN is not bitcoin.. OTHER COINS WILL USE IT. thats the true reason for it. its a multicoin network.
they are just screaming the bitcoin brand to garner support and financial backing to pay the devs to get it. its like saying a phone case is Apple yet its design fits samsung and other brand too.. they just want to tag themselves to bitcoin.
i guess yo missed the chatter about litecoin and other coins using it..

2 it is its own network a separate network the word network is literally spelled out in its name to emphasize it.
it has no blockchain. and its not a service purely for bitcoin. its purpos is not to give you 100% control it uses multisigs. multisigs is multiple parties co-managing funds and ending each others permission(signature)

2. new opcodes being added to LN actually re introduce malleability
and before you deny that. the LN devs are fully aware of it and admit it themselves. they even want to rename the opcode to make it obvious thats its risky to use

i am getting so astonished that so many talk about something but have yet to actually research it beyond some reddit glossy leaflet style promotional script


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: BrewMaster on September 27, 2018, 12:23:16 PM
LN is a separate network. like ripple
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible

now that's just absurd.
LN is not completely a separate network. it is a network strongly connected to bitcoin network. and calling it "like ripple" is just dumb. on Ripple network everything is centralized. even if it looks any other way. you holding private keys to Ripple addresses means nothing since they can spend your coins if they wanted to like they did once before. but you holding your bitcoin private keys and using LN means you are in control.

as for "change", LN could have been built on top of bitcoin that was before easily but the problem was the malleability that made it insecure and that much harder to use LN in a safe way.

1. LN is not bitcoin.. OTHER COINS WILL USE IT. thats the true reason for it. its a multicoin network.
they are just screaming the bitcoin brand to garner support and financial backing to pay the devs to get it. its like saying a phone case is Apple yet its design fits samsung and other brand too.. they just want to tag themselves to bitcoin.
i guess yo missed the chatter about litecoin and other coins using it..

2 it is its own network a separate network the word network is literally spelled out in its name to emphasize it.
it has no blockchain. and its not a service purely for bitcoin. its purpos is not to give you 100% control it uses multisigs. multisigs is multiple parties co-managing funds and ending each others permission(signature)

3. new opcodes being added to LN actually re introduce malleability
and before you deny that. the LN devs are fully aware of it and admit it themselves. they even want to rename the opcode to make it obvious thats its risky to use

i am getting so astonished that so many talk about something but have yet to actually research it beyond some reddit glossy leaflet style promotional script

1&2. LN is not bitcoin but a network that is build on top of bitcoin and relies on bitcoin and the blockchain of it. the fact that other altcoins use it doesn't make it any less true.
it uses multisig but you still are in full control of your funds. you can take it out anytime you wanted to. that "permission" that you need to get your bitcoin's out is granted to you when you open the channel and when the balance changes like after spending or receiving funds and you can use the already signed transaction to "cash out" or make the on-chain transaction closing the channel and taking your money out.

3. i don't know about it to deny or admit :)

i am not visiting reddit by the way...


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 12:40:25 PM
1&2. LN is not bitcoin but a network that is build on top of bitcoin and relies on bitcoin and the blockchain of it. the fact that other altcoins use it doesn't make it any less true.
it uses multisig but you still are in full control of your funds. you can take it out anytime you wanted to. that "permission" that you need to get your bitcoin's out is granted to you when you open the channel and when the balance changes like after spending or receiving funds and you can use the already signed transaction to "cash out" or make the on-chain transaction closing the channel and taking your money out.

3. i don't know about it to deny or admit :)

i am not visiting reddit by the way...

1&2 coinbase is not bitcoin but a service built ontop of bitcoin. they also use other altcoins.
LN and coinbase can survive without bitcoin. they simply just trade litecoins instead if something happened to bitcoin.
it is not dependant on bitcoin.

litcoin traders will use it and never touch bitcoin and it functions. OMG shock horror, right. litecoin using LN and not need bitcoin..

bitcoin nodes could if LN became too malicious not use LN..
i get what your saying, they want it to be tagged as the solution/child of bitcoin (lots of fame and promo oppertunities by doing so.). but thats like a bank saying its gold... and we all know all banks do these days is play with paper.

as for the belief that you have 100% control you dont. you say that you can cash out.. well your co-signer can too..
and guess what. they can send your previous transaction out. because they needed to sign a previous one of yours.. and then they can because you gave them the revocation. they can then send out a current one with the revocation and spend the funds that you think you own(but never did).. and lets jsut call it what it is.. "chargeback".

you are in a mutually assured distruction multisig where you are both tied to each other.. with which devs are still trying to patch up.. lots of buggy opportunities to rip each other off with due to the mutual relationship of LN

and LN devs know of the issues its why they warn you to only use low amounts as there is risks you can lose what you put in
if you had 100% you cant lose.. obviously

i find it funny people think you retain 100% control.
if you ever did then the other person wont know if your spending funds secretly elsewhere..
it needs to be co-signed to prevent you spending elsewhere.

but anyway. research watchtowers and factories and you will see the % control decrease even further.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: DooMAD on September 27, 2018, 01:12:46 PM
i find it funny people think you retain 100% control.
if you ever did then the other person wont know if your spending funds secretly elsewhere..
it needs to be co-signed to prevent you spending elsewhere.

And apart from "herp derp blocksize increase", how would you have created a better LN?  You keep saying that everything about Lightning is wrong (and many disagree with you, but that's not the point).  What do you have to offer to make LN better?  Clearly Lightning is not going away, so what constructive contributions can you offer in your infinite wisdom?  If all you can do is suggest things that don't help improve Lightning, what function do you serve? 

Yes, part of the security model is that both parties have to agree on what the current state is.  Would you prefer it if the other party could send you transactions you hadn't agreed to in an attemp to trick you into spending from an older state?  Is that how LN would work if franky1 was in charge?  Of course not.  So stop trying to paint useful security features as a flaw, you manipulative weasel.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 10:19:49 PM
i find it funny people think you retain 100% control.
if you ever did then the other person wont know if your spending funds secretly elsewhere..
it needs to be co-signed to prevent you spending elsewhere.

And apart from "herp derp blocksize increase", how would you have created a better LN?

i know we are all frustrated. we all thought we found the red pill to the banking matrix. to then be told there is a wonderland for alice but it just leads back to how banks work. i understand the frustrations.

i understand the path of frustrations
banks have broke use bitcoin
bitcoins broke use LN
LN's broke but bitcoin is broke and expensive use an alt (thats next stage: dont get ur gold out fortknox. have some nickel coins instead)

yes i know the devs are pushing people in circles and into new rabbit holes that promise wonderlands leading to more rabbit holes

maybe first its best you use LN. and not for the one time utopian scenario of everyone needing to be online is online for that 1 time blissful experience of seeing them say yes in milliseconds. but seeing the flaws.

LN is not a sole feature for only bitcoin.
imagine it this way.
your a stunt driver. you have a bitcoin car. but you want to drive a lightning car and test it out. it has all the bitcoin and litecoin and other altcoin sponsorship stickers on the lightning car and has been promoted as the fastest car there is
but to drive it. you need to put your bitcoin car up as collatoral for insurance purposes and lock it up in a factory.

and now you can drive the lightning car... but remember its not your car. your driving a different car and have a navigator sat beside you.
your car is locked away in a factory of lightning.. it too is not on the lightning track or able to move on the bitcoin network.

the car your driving is not on the bitcoin road network. its on its own separate track.
you no longer have the only set of keys to your bitcoin car.

actually play it out in real world scenario of a month.
preplanning spending habits to know whats best to deposit.
spreading it across channels
knowing others will spend your funds because your on their route
people not always being online
people not always being well funded

the LN dev admit there are flaws. its about time the community admit it to and stop promoting it the wonderland to alice.

remember its just a vehicle. and other people will use that vehicle. people from litecoin town will use the vehicle.

as for those that think bitcoin is broke the whole emotion that bitcoin needs a different network is a massive facepalm.
if you want to concede and think bitcoin is broke and needs another network. the go play with another network.

meanwhile those that actually care about the bitcoin network will concentrate on the bitcoin network. not trying to make other networks better, but call out where bitcoin devs are causing issues

so before hitting the reply in frustration at me. take a step back. have some coffee. and relax.
actually think about these questions.

a. do you want to concede that bitcoin is broke and needs people to move away from bitcoin and use other networks like LN rootstock and bakkt
b. would you rather have all the devs return and only innovate the bitcoin blockchain for pure bitcoin mainnet utility. or promote other networks and let bitcoin stagnate to make these other networks look good

take a deeper step back and really ask
is the whole bloat up a new tx format to peal off a few bytes and hide them elsewhere.. and then 4* legacy tx's to make the pealable tx format look better and all the other convoluted code any less 'herpa durpa' then just allowing segwit AND legacy to fully use the 4mb area the devs now say is ok...

get rid of the 4x wishy washy tweaking and just treat the bytes of a legacy as a bytes. and the bytes of a full segwit as bytes and just let the network have extra capacity. upto a lean 15k+ instead of 6k+ and then grow the capacity over time.
(unless your going to cry that livestreaming and playing HD online gaming running around, firing at targets while also on teamspeak is broke because millions of people cant.. blah blah blah false arguments about internet limitations and computer limitations of pretending we are in the 1990's floppydisk era)

P.S
you can buy coffee without needing multiple co-sign channels and without multiple tx's onchain.. its called buy a starbucks giftcard as then your just in a simple partnership with stabucks spendin what you need without the headache of others raiding your funds on your route or needing to watch raw tx data incase the partner makes you sign something by mistake

but hey if you want to keep thinking bitcoin is dead and the only option is other networks. you go play that game.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: DooMAD on September 27, 2018, 11:09:55 PM
we all thought we found the red pill to the banking matrix. to then be told there is a wonderland for alice but it just leads back to how banks work.

Lightning.  Is.  Not.  Even.  Close.  To.  How.  Banks.  Work.

Your confusion stems from the fact you haven't got the faintest clue how Lightning works.


the LN dev admit there are flaws. its about time the community admit it to and stop promoting it the wonderland to alice.

You're the only person dealing in absolutes.  We're all saying development is going to continue so that both Bitcoin and LN incrementally improve over time.  You're the one who says it's all-or-nothing and everything has to be on-chain or bust.  


remember its just a vehicle. and other people will use that vehicle. people from litecoin town will use the vehicle.

That's good.  Interoperability between chains is a feature, not a bug.  Atomic swaps will be good.  Why do you keep arguing good things are bad?


as for those that think bitcoin is broke the whole emotion that bitcoin needs a different network is a massive facepalm.

You're the one saying it's broke.  We think it's coming along just fine.


if you want to concede and think bitcoin is broke and needs another network. the go play with another network.

You go play with the "other" networks.  There are plenty of crappy forks where your primitive mindset would be more than welcome.  


meanwhile those that actually care about the bitcoin network will concentrate on the bitcoin network. not trying to make other networks better, but call out where bitcoin devs are causing issues

Development to improve the base protocol continues.  Again, you're the only one arguing all-or-nothing.  Some developers work on Bitcoin because that's what they freely choose to work on.  Some are developing different Lightning implementations because that's what they freely choose to work on.  You are the one claiming that development on the base protocol is being stalled, which is a total fabrication on your part.
  

would you rather have all the devs return and only innovate the bitcoin blockchain for pure bitcoin mainnet utility.

You can't force them to "return", you fascist twunt.  Permissionless.  They can do whatever they like.  


is the whole bloat up a new tx format to peal off a few bytes and hide them elsewhere.. and then 4* legacy tx's to make the pealable tx format look better and all the other convoluted code is any less 'herpa durpa' then just allowing segwit AND legacy to fully use the 4mb area the devs now say is ok...

You have BCH for that.  You constantly fail to answer every time I ask you:

What is the point in having two BCHs?  

You want larger blocks?  You've got them.  Go play with them.  Leave us in peace.  The scientific approach is to test multiple theories, not repeat the same idea on every fork.  If you think the "real" Bitcoin is purely on-chain, use that network that likes to pretend it's the real Bitcoin (but doesn't have the numbers behind it to back that claim).  
 

but hey if you want to kep thinking bitcoin is dead and the only option is other networks. you go play that game.

The only thing that's dead around here is your credibility.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 11:11:59 PM
anyway back to the topic now the distraction of other networks is handled.

why need 100% adoption
why need everyone using segwit keys.

for full nodes (proper bitcoin data validators and archivers) segwit does not offer a byte per tx advantage

i get it. if you wanna lock funds up in another network then yea use a segwit key and go play

but for day to day onchain utility where real full data is fully validatd and fully stored. why need 100% segwit adoption.
just remove the 4x legacy wishy washy herpa derp and declare the 4mb block as open single box 4mb space for legacy and segwit to coexist in full. and have practical amount of more transaction capacity without the herpa derp


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: DooMAD on September 27, 2018, 11:26:25 PM
anyway back to the topic now the distraction of other networks is handled.

Yes, now that your LN arguments have been obliterated, let's get back to SegWit and breadwallet.

Permissionless.  Breadwallet devs are free to design a client that only uses bech32 if that's what they believe the best course of action is.  If users don't want to have bech32 addresses, they are free to continue to run older versions of breadwallet, or even a totally different client.  

You are free to not use SegWit.  I'm sure you must know that because no one has put a gun to your head to make you use it.  It is always entirely up to you what code you install and run.  The choice is yours.  However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  If you can't abide by that, again, feel free to use other networks where SegWit has not been activated.  We won't miss you.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 11:27:24 PM
the LN dev admit there are flaws. its about time the community admit it to and stop promoting it the wonderland to alice.
You're the only person dealing in absolutes.  We're all saying development is going to continue so that both Bitcoin and LN incrementally improve over time.  You're the one who says it's all-or-nothing and everything has to be on-chain or bust.  

remember its just a vehicle. and other people will use that vehicle. people from litecoin town will use the vehicle.
That's good.  Interoperability between chains is a feature, not a bug.  Atomic swaps will be good.  Why do you keep arguing good things are bad?

others say its utopia..
also others say its a bitcoin feature.

its a separate network.
again why are we discussing why other networks are better or worse..
talk about bitcoin and think about bitcoin network. stop emphasising other networks and promoting them.

again if your a bitcoiner you wan he bitcoin network to be strong. but if you want to talk about other networkers then your a crypto fan.

interoperability of another network. not something done on the bitcoin network.
again your promoting features of other networks.. you might aswell deposit into shapeshift. you then dont have to worry about splitting funds over multiple channels or having others raid your funds because they are on your route.. you can swap coins with a co-partner all you want.


the all or nothing. is the bitcoin network vs other networks.
a bitcoiner wants things actually on the bitcoin network.
if your ok with other networks and features being better on other networks. then go play with other networks.

i do find your comments about sorting out the bitcoin network being "herpa derpa" but defending other networks amusing

as for the respect of segwit users.
read my posts
i said open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity
i never said lets downgrade and then only have 2-4mb legacy only.

yea i revealed segwit byte per tx inefficiency as viewed by the viewpoint of a real full validator and data archiver node. because the fact is people under promise and over promote. and utopianise something.. it needs correcting

and yes if people want to peal the banana. they can use lite wallets too.
but yea. now you are just trying to poke the bear to distract the topic.

bitcoiners should not use enforcement technique to push one side away. if they want a central enforced network. follow their own advice and they move to another network.

i am not enforcing crap. i am not releasing my own node to the network. thus i can predict u biting your lip ready to reply to make it sound like i am..

but all i am doing is waking people up the the under delivered over promised narrative of some. who are desparate to advertise other networks and even more desparate of not letting the community use real consensus.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 11:34:30 PM
anyway back to the topic now the distraction of other networks is handled.

Yes, now that your LN arguments have been obliterated, let's get back to SegWit and breadwallet.

Permissionless.  Breadwallet devs are free to design a client that only uses bech32 if that's what they believe the best course of action is.  If users don't want to have bech32 addresses, they are free to continue to run older versions of breadwallet, or even a totally different client.  

You are free to not use SegWit.  I'm sure you must know that because no one has put a gun to your head to make you use it.  It is always entirely up to you what code you install and run.  The choice is yours.  However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  If you can't abide by that, again, feel free to use other networks where SegWit has not been activated.  We won't miss you.
typical reaction
let certain players mandatory control the path of bitcoin. tell people the only option is to use another network

segwit is not 100% community supported
proven by the months of less than 40% activation flag requiring a mandatory action
proven by the months of less than under 24%  utilisation requiring a open letter call for enforcement

but them segwit fans want to push "enforcment" (mandatory upgrade or go play with another network)
segwit didnt get activatd via true community consensus. it got activated by the mandaty consensus bypass (buzzworded by devs themselves bilateral split)

sorry but if you are ok with bitcoin becoming a dev monarchy. then you missed the point of the ethos of bitcoin.

surprisingly though its you that love and want people to use other networks. and say innovating bitcoin network is herpa derpa


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: DooMAD on September 27, 2018, 11:50:49 PM
others say its utopia

No.  No one has said that.  

As with all of your other lies and manipulations, it's literally just you claiming that people are saying it's utopia.  It's just you claiming that people think Bitcoin is broken.  It's just you claiming that on-chain development is being stalled.  How about you stop making claims that further reveal you to be a lying troll?


again why are we discussing why other networks are better or worse..

Because you keep derailing perfectly good threads.  You are the one claiming the current direction we're moving in is making BTC worse. 


segwit is not 100% community supported

Learn to read.  I didn't say it was.  I'll repeat what I said:

However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  

There are enough people who do support it to make you and your troll screed insignificant.  If enough people felt strongly enough to have opposed SegWit, we'd all be using BCH by now.  And clearly that isn't happening.  I'm sorry reality can't be more accommodating for you.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 27, 2018, 11:55:49 PM
There are enough people who do support it to make you and your troll screed insignificant.

mandatory bilateral split
research it
P.s read previous posts.. under 40% has been mentioned many time
P.P.s  segwit has not made hard drive bytes more efficient to increase tx count per byte
P.P.P.s  transaction counts have gone DOWN on average. less people are using bitcoin.. not more. less transactors.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: DooMAD on September 28, 2018, 12:12:45 AM
mandatory bilateral split
research it

You keep saying that as though it matters...

Maybe one day you'll realise it doesn't and that you're pretty much the only one who seems to care.

Repeat if in every thread for the rest of time if you like, it's not changing anything.  Much like the blockchain itself, history can't be undone.

And even if it could be undone, do you honestly think we're going to agree to roll it all back to how it was and then invite Roger Ver over for tea and sodding biscuits?   ::)

You are literally broken in the head.  Seek help.





Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 28, 2018, 12:29:39 AM
Repeat if in every thread for the rest of time if you like, it's not changing anything.  Much like the blockchain itself, history can't be undone.

And even if it could be undone, do you honestly think we're going to agree to roll it all back to how it was

history cannot change. but reminding people of history ensures they remember it if history tries repeating itself.
and if you do not care about mandatory threats and controlled upgrades that bypass consensus. then you have revealed much more about your lack of care for bitcoin and you more concern of promoting people should use other networks

and then invite Roger Ver over for tea and sodding biscuits?   ::)
You are literally broken in the head.  Seek help.

and oh look you mention the social kardashian drama of someone thats not a dev and not even part of the bitcoin network, and then also including an insult..
 ........ typical response

anyway, moving on
as for the respect of segwit users.
read my posts
i said open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity
i never said lets downgrade and then only have 2-4mb legacy only.

time you did go sleep. tomorrow reign in your emotions to be concerned with the bitcoin network and how people on the bitcoin network are trying to enforce things using mandatory dated explicit consensus bypassing crap without mentioning how other networks are better or second options


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: NeuroticFish on September 28, 2018, 05:24:10 AM
there is no difference between the keys that you are storing. you are still storing the same private key when it comes to cold storage.

The difference comes when you redeem the paper wallet. 1x address will surely work with all the software and you can surely send the money everywhere you want.
And as a bonus, you can also get money for a beer from the various forks.

you can even use the same tools such as bitaddress.org to generate the private key then get the public key and then very easily convert that public key (which will be 100% safe since it is public key not private key) to a bech32 address.

This is interesting and I didn't know, I will study this.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Wind_FURY on September 28, 2018, 06:01:08 AM
LN is not bitcoin

Yes and no. The Lightning Network is nothing but a network of user-generated channels that needs one Bitcoin on-chain transaction to open a channel and another one to close it.

Transactions are stored locally until a user decides to close the channel and broadcast its latest state like an ordinary on-chain transaction.

Quote
LN is not even blockchain

No one is claiming that it is.

Quote
LN is a separate network. like ripple

No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain.

Quote
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible
litecoin had to change to be LN compatible

Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: DooMAD on September 28, 2018, 11:47:42 AM
and if you do not care about mandatory threats and controlled upgrades that bypass consensus. then you have revealed much more about your lack of care for bitcoin and you more concern of promoting people should use other networks

So you continue to maintain this total fiction that "developers control the network"?  Even though the code they produce has no power unless people choose to run it?  Cool, destroy those tattered remnants of your credibility that little bit further.  Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of consensus can recognise that you are talking nonsense.  Users and miners made this happen.  They made that choice.  Developers just provided them with the tools to do so.  So blame the users and miners (except you can't, because it doesn't fit your narrative).  Consensus made it happen, so blame consensus rather than making ludicrous claims that it was "bypassed".  That's what happens if you run incompatible code and you don't have sufficient numbers behind you.  It's designed to work that way.  If you were forked off the network as a result, that's on you.

If I didn't care about Bitcoin, I wouldn't keep challenging your manipulative FUD posts.  You think you can tell developers, users and miners what they can or can't do in a permissionless system.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think it's vital for everyone to be able to make their own decisions.  You think developers should be forced to stop working on off-chain solutions and drag them kicking and screaming back to the base protocol when that's not what they want to work on.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think developers are free to create anything their vision and talent can manifest, even if it's an alternative client that some would claim is an "attack", "hostile takeover", "coup", whatever (much like how you claim LN is an attack on Bitcoin).  You think you can foist undesirable changes onto nodes that do not want them.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think nodes are vital to the network's resilience and we should not make things prohibitively costly for them.  

SegWit is opt-in.  Bech32 is opt-in.  Lightning is opt-in.  However, imposing greater on-chain throughput onto nodes that do not want greater on-chain throughput is NOT opt-in.  Why do you think you get to force your authoritarian views on others when there are already other chains that cater to your wishes?  That's what you're doing when you insist that we "open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity".  There are blockchains where nodes freely choose to accept greater on-chain throughput, but that's not this chain.  It would be advantageous for you to use a chain where people share your views.  Stop pretending that you respect the decision this chain has made when all you want to do is overturn it.

Also, it takes two sides to have a disagreement.  There would not have been a fork at all if everyone agreed.  Some chose to run the code that adhered to consensus on the BTC chain, while others chose to run code that did not adhere to consensus on the BTC chain.  Sounds like freedom to me.  Why do you not apportion blame equally to both sides?  Clearly we could not reach an agreement where everyone was satisfied.  And it seems like you still can't find one long after the rest of us have moved on from this matter.  And be under no illusion that we have absolutely moved on.  So it's far better if everyone moves forward in a direction they are happy with, even if that means parting ways.  It gives people greater freedom and choice that way.

Consensus means you run the code you want to run and you will be automatically matched with other people running compatible code.  You will then build a blockchain together and ideally reap the benefits of any network effects you jointly produce.  That's how this works.  You can either adhere to consensus or you fork away and form your own consensus with others.  Whatever you believe the developers and the code did or didn't do, it doesn't really matter anymore.  It's moot and it's done.  The simple fact is that people chose to run that code and consequences happened which you seriously need to get the hell over.


tomorrow reign in your emotions to be concerned with the bitcoin network and how people on the bitcoin network are trying to enforce things

Said the fascist trying to enforce things.   ::)

Your ideas are not compatible with permissionless freedom.  I say that without emotion.  You are being emotional.  Stop whining about things you can't change and move on.

Also, start a new thread for this if you feel the need to continue.  This topic is supposed to be about breadwallet.  If users don't like the change developers have made, usage of breadwallet will naturally decrease.  It's entirely up to the users, as it should be.  There is no "forced change", as you were alluding to when you first started derailing the thread:

forced change!! have you not learned anything.

Name the users that have had a gun put to their heads by the breadwallet devs to force them to run this new code.  Name one.  Breadwallet may have applied pressure to some businesses to implement bech32 support, but no users are being forced to run code they don't want to run.



Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: franky1 on September 28, 2018, 03:18:03 PM
Quote
LN is a separate network. like ripple

No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain.

Quote
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible
litecoin had to change to be LN compatible

Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix.

1. what you have yet to realise is that LN is a network that can be used without the bitcoin blockchain.
because LN allows litecoin transactions and other coins..
lets call LN an island. it allows many nations. its just right now its occupied by bitcoiners exploring the land .. it doesnt mean its only for bitcoiners. if bitcoiners leave. other nations can survive as they are allowed on the island.

2. segwit is a compatability with LN fix... maybe you should realise new/reactivated opcodes allow malleability with segwit transactions.. the devs know it. they even discussed renaming an opcode to include a warning

3. segwit is also a X4 weight manipulation. to make old transaction type appear worse then segwit when its actually segwit that are more bloated.. byte for byte
take away the 4x scale factor wishy washy herpaderp code which legacy transactions are made victim of... and that will allow legacy AND segwit to sit side by side using the full4mb weight and allowing more transactions per block than the current herpa derp wishy washy limitation

4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN)

anyway. seeing as most rebuttles are from people that dont read code, and just want to defend coders rather than the network

.. i know standard reply.. if i dont like the changes i can F**k off to another network (typical BORDER control reply) i guess people dont read that bitcoin meant to be borderless and should not be told to use other networks outside the border
my point is get rid of the wall that is limiting population growth and stop advertising other things outside the border as the only option people have


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Pursuer on September 29, 2018, 03:29:04 AM
there is no difference between the keys that you are storing. you are still storing the same private key when it comes to cold storage.

The difference comes when you redeem the paper wallet. 1x address will surely work with all the software and you can surely send the money everywhere you want.
And as a bonus, you can also get money for a beer from the various forks.

yeah, if you are talking about convenience it is somewhat correct since the best wallets such as Electrum and Core are already supporting it. and if it is the possible monetary benefits such as forks then again somewhat right since these forks aren't happening anymore and usually after a couple of them, the value of new one is not high enough to make you bother claiming them.
but if we are talking about security, then there is no difference.

Quote
you can even use the same tools such as bitaddress.org to generate the private key then get the public key and then very easily convert that public key (which will be 100% safe since it is public key not private key) to a bech32 address.

This is interesting and I didn't know, I will study this.

the steps are even the same. private key is the same, public key is the same, the functions you do on public key is the same (sha256 then ripmd160) then the different step is after that. if you encode this result with base58 you will get an address with 1, if you encode it with bech32 you get an address with bc1. and you can convert these to each other.
but receiving funds in them is not the same, you will need a different transaction to spend them.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Wind_FURY on October 01, 2018, 05:32:08 AM
Quote
LN is a separate network. like ripple

No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain.

Quote
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible
litecoin had to change to be LN compatible

Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix.

1. what you have yet to realise is that LN is a network that can be used without the bitcoin blockchain.
because LN allows litecoin transactions and other coins..
lets call LN an island. it allows many nations. its just right now its occupied by bitcoiners exploring the land .. it doesnt mean its only for bitcoiners. if bitcoiners leave. other nations can survive as they are allowed on the island.

The Lightning Network is an open source project that other cryptocurrencies are welcome to use. What are you afraid off? That users can use Lightning for cross blockchain transfers without the exchanges to act as the middleman? Haha.

Quote
2. segwit is a compatability with LN fix...

No. I believe specifically Lightning was not in the discussion when Segwit was proposed. But off-chain layers may be already discussed.

Quote
maybe you should realise new/reactivated opcodes allow malleability with segwit transactions.. the devs know it. they even discussed renaming an opcode to include a warning

Show us the link to that claim.

Quote
3. segwit is also a X4 weight manipulation. to make old transaction type appear worse then segwit when its actually segwit that are more bloated.. byte for byte
take away the 4x scale factor wishy washy herpaderp code which legacy transactions are made victim of... and that will allow legacy AND segwit to sit side by side using the full4mb weight and allowing more transactions per block than the current herpa derp wishy washy limitation

What are you talking about? What's "wishy washy"? The fact that Segwit increased transactions per block, and was done through an inclusive, backwards-compatible soft fork was a job well done by the Core developers.

Quote
4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN)

Will it make the way for trading cryptocurrencies decentrally without centralized exchanges?

Quote
anyway. seeing as most rebuttles are from people that dont read code, and just want to defend coders rather than the network


Would you want us to side with you instead? Hahaha.


Title: Re: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet
Post by: Herbert2020 on October 01, 2018, 05:40:39 AM
4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN)

this doesn't sound right.
at human readable level:
1. single key (P2PKH) litecoin: L bitcoin:1
2. multi key (P2SH) litecoin: M bitcoin: 3
so the difference was already there, we didn't need a new address format.

at blockchain/code level they are the same script!

bech32 didn't change anything. at human readable level there is the same difference as before and at code level they are still the same script as before too, which you can not differentiate.
they are both 0014<hash160> and you won't be able to say if it is a LTC Bech32 or BTC Bech32