Bitcoin Forum

At this point, as masterfully as Bitcoin was created, it has some limitations of course. 

My question is:  Could it be done better, or is it just matter of trading one feature for another (i.e. speed for decentralization)?

You don't necessarily have to sacrifice something (If done right). If we take increasing blocksize vs SegWit.

SegWit have no downsides while increasing the blocksize could give us centralization to a certain degree as the blockchain size increases over the years.

We're far from having Bitcoin 2.0 but BIPs are definitely being put on the table and constantly being worked on so with time, the limitations will you're talking about will start to fade.

SegWit came with the effective blocksize increase, but it was small enough to not cause any harm. The main goal of segwit wasn't scalability though, it was a fix for signature malleability that now allows developers to work on new features more easily.


If you are suggesting that Bitcoin is inherently flawed and that there's a need for a brand new protocol, than look at altcoins - many of them are promising exactly that with their hashgraphs, tangle, DPOS and other buzzwords. The fact that they have no users and are plagued with bugs and other problems only means that it's too early to bury Bitcoin. It might very well be that there can be nothing better than Bitcoin's protocol.

any kind of change will always have both downsides and upsides. so it is wrong to say SegWit didn't have any downsides! because it did. for example the fact that it is opt-in makes it an inefficient block size increase. and also the complexity of it has been a problem for services to adopt it.

If I was in charge of Bitcoin 2.0,I wouldn't change anything in the code.
I will register bitcoin as a trademark and I would sue all the forked bitcoin cash,gold,diamond,unlimited,etc. forks for using the word "bitcoin". ;D
I won't charge btc users and companies for using that word,but all the forked altcoins will have to change their names or die.

The developers have decided to go to second layer solutions now and I think this was a very smart move, because you still have the rock solid security of the core protocol <on-chain> for large transactions and then a less mature platform <off-chain> for smaller micro transactions.

The decision to reduce the security for on-chain transactions was genius, because it gives people an alternative method to transfer coins if anything fails on the off-chain side.  8)

We do not need Bitcoin 2.0 if we just shift development onto second layers.  ;) 

If we were to build it from scratch again, confidential transactions would be ideal. While the fully transparent ledger is good for some things, it's not ideal for transactions where privacy is necessary.

Speed and scalability are always going to be the weak points of decentralized systems. They're inefficient and redundant, and speeding up block times just worsens orphan rates, lowering transaction security.

I believe franky1 will love this topic, and will have a lot to say. Especially because of his perceived "incompetence" of the Core developers in maintaining the development of a secure, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency.

Who would be your candidates as lead developers of Bitcoin 2.0?

fixed that for you

bitcoin needs to go back to true consensus. not the trojan back door they just opened. many many people outside a certain group are noticing that bitcoin is now weaker security because of this new backdoor.
yes the certain group will promote that it makes their job of activating features easier. but it also makes malicious actors who also use the same method easier.

if you care about bitcoin security. you should not be thinking about whats easiest for a certain dev team. but whats most secure for a decentralised user to fight off code changes that the decentralised users may not want.

...
as for scaling BITCOIN. instead of moving users OFF the bitcoin network. into vaulted co-permissioned factory managed networks of unaudited payments and requiring watch towers, etc. how about just trying to actually stop making bitcoin other network compatible. and instead make bitcoin actually scale beyond 7tx/s(600k tx a day)
satoshi himself expressed the numbers back in 2009-10 that the limitation is 600k tx a day.. mempools are always containing transactions, people are waiting more than 1 block. thus obviously segwit has not fixed, offered or given any scaling benefit to solve the issue.
segwits purpose to to make bitcoin compatible with other networks so that people dont use bitcoin

lastly
although segwit fake counts bytes of a baseblock. to bypass a rule.
the rule was put inplace for hard drive storage count.
hard drive bytes per transaction of actual full nodes have shown that segwit has NOT helped bring more transactions per hard drive byte storage.
blockchain stats have shown the average transaction count decline
and th updates have also made is so bloated spammers used to be able to bloat a block with just 5tx of 4k sigops. can now bloat a block of 5tx of 16k sigops. which is not helpful. its the opposite of helpful

...
for those trying so hard to promote LN
LN is not a layer 2 of bitcoin.
LN was not designed to be a feature for bitcoin.
bitcoin had to be altered to fit LN

LN is a separate network for multiple coins. meaning what will happen for them people that want to be fullnodes to monitor channels locks to avoid double spends. is they will end up needing to be masternodes where they will have to monitor litecoin, vertcoin, bitcoin and other LN compatible coin lock mechanisms

LN does not help reduce hard drive bloat. instead its just taking users away from 100% sole control push transactions and moved it into another network that will require masternode watchtower factories who will charge to be the vaults of onchain funds to then pass out unaudited channel payments of 12 decimals. so that they can charge a fee for their service

people need to really understand not just the rose tinted empty promises. but also the stark realities of proposals. just taking a proposal as good because "trust a dev" is not a good mindset of a decentralised network

if you at least once got out of the mindset of needing 'candidates as lead developers' you would then see what decentralisation really means.

where anyone could then propose new features. and without mandated activation dates or coercion. devs actually think about the bitcoin communities needs and make code and release code that would get activated when the community see the true benefits of letting it activate.

I would change the fact that I was in charge because that is not decentralized and that is not then bitcoin as it should be. Not to mention if bitcoin were to be centralized I would be a completely useless person to have in charge.

in my opinion, BTC today is perfect, only a segwit problems that will help with transactions in a block.

I hope, BTC transactions can be used for every feature in the mobile.

What kind of development team has stated that it wants to run Bitcoin 2.0?

I think people need fast and cheap transactions. Now the transaction rate is very long

Segwit's goal wasn't the blocksize increase, so it's wrong to criticize it for it. And being opt-in is the result of softfork, and softforks are great because they are much less disruptive than hardforks, so there's almost no risk of chain splits.

It's also wrong to say that SegWit was complex, all you had to do is update your wallet software and create a new SegWit-compatible wallet. Some services did this only after a few days or a week after the fork, big services like Coinbase just didn't care about their customers, which resulted in huge fees later in 2017.

no risk of chain splits......................
........ apart from the one caused in august 2017 to actually get segwit activated

for years peopl have been begging for devs to scale bitcoin. devs came up with a scaling roadmap. segwit was the stepping stone for that.. so critisizing segwit for not helping scale bitcoin is warranted.
segwits goal was to make using normal bitcoin transaction formats 4x more expensive.
segwits goal was to make bitcoin more compatible with a separate network thats not a blockchain and not a feature for bitcoin. segwits goal was to open a backdoor so devs can now push things into bitcoin without consensus

so step one of actually scaling bitcoin. get rid of the hideous witness scale factor, which will achieve:
1. transaction bytes being again counted correctly and fully
2. transactions not being pushed up in price
3. the 4mb 'weight' actually being fully utilisable
4. we may actually see transaction counts finally surpass the 600k a day limit thats been around for nearly 10 years now

What chain split? Segwit reached the 95% threshold and activation went off without a hitch. There was never any network partition -- no orphaned chains post-fork, no lost transactions, nothing.

If you're talking about Bitcoin Cash, that was a new protocol that copied Bitcoin's ledger and launched at block height 478558. It was no more a "chain split" than any of the other dozens of Bitcoin forks (like Bitcoin Diamond and Super Bitcoin) were.

There's no team in particular, just hypothetical.  Some great insights in this thread though, wow.

I wouldn't change anything. Bitcoin is working just fine as it is. I also wouldn't want to be the person in charge, because it would kill decentralization and make ma a target. Things could have been much worse for Bitcoin if Satoshi remained active and at some point CIA or some other agency tracked him down. We never know how things would work out if just one thing was different. If there was no Mark Karpeles and his scam exchange, maybe Bitcoin would be worth 50000 dollars now?

I'm too technically disabled to make an informed comment on this but if I were planning something -

If I were truly committed to it being used as an actual currency I would've gone for XMR's ongoing trickle of inflation. Human nature won't change and people will hoard something that deflates. That also clears up any doubts about the end of the block reward.

I would've started off with Satoshis as the base unit, or units made up of 100 Satoshis. I know unit bias is stupid. People are stupid.

I'll leave all the other aspects to better educated people.

If I were Satoshi 2.0, I would ensure that further fork of Bitcoin doesn't happen anymore. I know early adopters of bitcoin won't like my side of wishful thinking as that would prevent them from coming into unplanned wealth which forks have always provided for them.

If something is open source then it's forkable. That's how it works. If Bitcoin had been closed source we wouldn't be here today because people wouldn't have paid it the slightest attention. All forks do is prove that you can't replicate the trust and history that Bitcoin has earned.

Satoshis are the base unit of Bitcoin, if you look at raw transactions, the amounts are represented in satoshis - on a protocol level there's no other units. 1 Bitcoin  = 100mil satoshis is just what your wallet displays for convenience, and it's trivial to implement any other units. Electrum has an option for displaying milibitcoins.

Then I should've rephrased that as prime reference unit.

It's too late now for enough people to agree to start dicking around with decimal points. For some reason stating that unit bias is a thing has always been shat on here. I disagree. I've seen it endlessly in the real world.

I think that everything is fine and I wouldn't have changed anything even if I could do this. I think that btc is the best coin and it is worth it. To my mind, it is better to leave everything as it is

you do know the "dev state" instigated the FORK/split.. bch came HOURS after, as a result of it

i cant actually believe you truly said that there was no split/fork and then mentioned the split/fork by saying there was no split/fork after the split/fork.
the split/fork was the the split/fork..
it got rid of the opposers so that the "dev state" would get their faked 100% loyalty count

put it this way
imagine you were in 2016 married.. but wanted to get involved with other people(networks). but only 35% of your family and friends thought it was a good idea to see other people(networks)

and so in march 2017 you decided things are not right no one is happy so you will get a divorce and you want the divorce finalised in august 2017 because you want to declare yourself 100% single by november so you can be involved with other people(networks)

so the divorce happened. you signed first and hours later your disgruntled parter went away to start their own life and now your able to declare you are 100% single and able to see other people(networks)

you are now saying there was no divorce after the divorce, and also saying that you have always been 100% single
(facepalm)

i truly think that squatter has just made the most stupid and ignorant myth to pretend that events didnt happen
sorry squatter but august 1st is august first. you cant hide it or pretend it didnt happen
even the "dev state" admit it happened. they gave it a few buzzwords. they even made hats which they wore to be proud of the divorce. they even changed their twitter account names to show which friend they would follow after the divorce.

p.s
i am neither a friend of the ex husband or ex wife of the previously united family. i just am someone that in this analogy is facepalming that the divorce occurred instead of all those involved communicating and coming to a compromise to keep it all united and move forward. rather than resorting to a divorce (which the "dev state" loudly and proudly call a bilateral split)

To be honest, I wouldn’t change anything as I believe that Bitcoin is an ideal coin in the cryptocurrency market

[/quote]
All forks do is prove that you can't replicate the trust and history that Bitcoin has earned.
[/quote]

does appear that the forks have watered down the soup

It is not that "ideal" coin, you might be saying this because of its popularity and its price.

Don't get me wrong though, I will be doing the same as you. I will not be changing anything to the Bitcoin we have now as it might be looked at as a forked Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto has other plans for Bitcoin in which other forkers did but whatever angle you look at it, it is still a forked Bitcoin, an altcoin.

Your response was hilarious but the analogy doesn't work. It's not like a divorce. I still stand by my explanation.

Anyone is free to hard fork Bitcoin at will, just like Bitcoin Cash. That's why we saw so many similar spinoffs like Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. It's not a "chain split" because that implies a network partition, which implies a compatible protocol -- that's a mutual condition. In the case of a hard fork like Bitcoin Cash, the fork just gets ignored by Bitcoin.


Compromise is not always possible. However, since these are permissionless and open source protocols, the next best thing when developers reach an impasse is to fork the protocol. That happens in FOSS development all the time.

I don't like calling it a "split" because that gives undeserved authority to those leaving the consensus. It makes it sound like a 50-50 split when in reality, all the Bitcoin forks (including Bitcoin Cash) have tiny user bases and ecosystems compared to Bitcoin.

all pow token after bitcoin are doomed and will not be successful, internet money will stay however the pow trash will become insignificant

its therefore pointless to discuss about a "bitcoin 2.0"

we will also get into a stage where tech doesnt matter and is exchangable/upgradable and insignificant

We need competent developers who have the specialized skills to maintain Bitcoin. People who can decide what ideas are good, and what should be rejected, because there are a lot of stupid ideas made, and only a few good ones.

Do you believe that all the stupid ideas made by incompetent people should be merged because there was a small group in the community who wanted it?


I believe anyone can make a pull request from Core's repository?

Of course you can do better. I would change things. Bitcoin is far from perfect. For starters, I'd make it stable. That's the main thing he's not good at.

I wouldn't do a second version of bitcoin. It wouldn't be bitcoin anymore. As a rule, the original first version is always better than all subsequent versions. I'd rather perfect the first and only version of bitcoin.

cores repository
(facepalm)
so you have already resigned your mindset that "dev state" are king... ok got that

as for anyone can make a pull request.
have you not looked at the moderation
remember you yourself believe and have been of approval that not everyone should be allowed to
here ill remind you.. as it seems you and your buddies have short memories when it comes to flip flopping to prtend its opn and then flop to say its best left as moderated and closed.


i know you will argue that bitcoin is "open" but any boss can say their door is always open and then say make an appointment and knock before entering or simply go away not now.
even a open door can ask you to wipe your feet before entering
.. oops i mean 'Nack'

again if you understood consensus as it was in 2009 2013. just having code proposals and nodes on the network does not mean jack until majority activation. ill say it again ACTIVATION
so why so afraid of a non "dev state".. why so adamant of wanting a "dev state"?

but the issue is not so much about "dev state" its more so that "dev state" can add code without consensus by either mandating people opposing off the network or by (their buzzword) inflight upgrades, which is in technical terms a trojan backdoor.
its like having autoupdate with no way of setting it to manual or dont upgrade. which is different to how bitcoin was in 2009-2013.

prime example needed? bech32 addresses came about in 2018. was there a consensus vote on it?
what other address formats and op codes will get activated without a consensus...
ever thought bugs can be introduced...
even care about bugs being introduced?

put it another way. imagine if a dev that was not "dev state" was to add stuff without consensus.. i can guarantee you would be up in arms screaming that something was done without dev state.

prime example needed? research REKT

again dont go trying to use a bitcoin ethos of 2009-2013 and pretend things are the same now
and dont be like your flip flop chums who flip flop to say its open and then flop flip to say "dev state" should not be told what to do and not do because they are king.

atleast take some time and choose which foot ur gonna stand on before you trip yourself up like your flip flop chums do.
because right now you are standing on the foot of wanting everything to go through the "dev state" repository.

I'd look to make the protocol scaleable and then LOCK it so that no dev can ruin it in the future.
This will in turn prevent the need to fork when devs become corrupt

This whole thing exists because it's a group effort. That works both ways. It stops the shit from being injected. It allows the best improvements to be integrated provided there's enough agreement. It also allows life saving fixes when they are unearthed.

If it could be 'locked' then no one would touch it. That implies control and centralisation, exactly not what people are looking for.

I agree with your opinion to a great extent
I add a question here
What is the effect of talking about Bitcoin 2.0 now on the Bitcoin price
I am afraid to be negative.
 

If I had been in charge in 2009, I'd make sure I did all the things that annoy Franky1 before he ever got into Bitcoin, so that he might have never got involved to begin with and we might be spared the horrors of his incessant whiny bitching.



You don't want people to understand consensus, you want to distort and pervert the meaning of the word "consensus" to something that suits your bullshit propaganda.  You are attempting to brainwash people.  Fortunately, most people aren't stupid enough to fall for it.  Most people understand that those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  The simple and undeniable fact is that 9000+ nodes are running Core software.  None of the supposedly bad things you whine about (in every goddamn thread, seemingly) would have happened if people chose to run other clients instead.  You can leave at any time if you don't approve of the decisions which the people securing this network are freely choosing to make.  Your quarrel lies with them.  They're running the code you don't like.  

oh here we go.. mr "dev state" defender numero one with his insults.
yawn


^ the main authoritarian admirer at his best flip flop attempts
look at him tell people that if they dont like things they should leave at any time if they dont approve
typical mindset

in consensus its simple
if people dont approve they should not leave
they should just not approve of something they do not approve of.

leaving is not a vote. leaving is avoiding a vote thus letting the corrupt automatically get 100% simple because the only ones left to vote are the sheep adoration brigade

typical for core fans, want to remove people that dont approve which is what occured in august 2017 (the blockchain doesnt lie)
and thats how the core now hav majority as oppose to only 35% in spring 2017

..
but you lot continue with your mindset of "dev state" adoration. you simply just have to admit that your authoritarian centralists an the debate ends

you fear having diverse teams of different brands cooperating on a single network
you fear having diverse teams of different brands offering proposals that oppose cores roadmap
you fear having diverse teams of different brands that could oppose cores wishes

all you desire is core control where everyone else just follows cores roadmap. thus you do not want a decentralised diverse network of different brands you want a core branded network of sheep  that are just distributing core code to retain cores control and leadership

Bitcoin is not a democracy.  It doesn't have elections.  There isn't a "vote", as such.  If that's what you want to see in Bitcoin, I assure you you're going to be disappointed, because I've yet to see any software that could make the Bitcoin network function in such a fashion.  No one cares what you "approve of" because your words don't mean anything.  I don't approve of you being a lying sack of human excrement, but that's not something I can express in code.  So it's irrelevant.  Run the code you want.  Or make new code.  Those are your freedoms to do with as you will.  Your freedom, however, does not entitle you to tell others what they can code.  If you believe it does, you are the authoritarian.

You run the software you like.  That software matches you up with other users who agree with you.  You then form a network and build a blockchain together.    
If you are not compatible with the network, you automatically leave the network and form a new one with other people running code which is compatible with yours.

That's consensus.  

You can't unilaterally change the meaning of consensus to "this group of devs can only code this and not propose new ideas and we have to have a vote and everyone needs to agree and blah blah blah standard Franky1 utter dross blah blah", etc.  You're a moron and you don't understand the first thing about anything.  

You say you don't agree, but you keep running code that makes you compatible with the network you claim you don't agree with.  Just in case you're a little slow on the uptake, I'll repeat that point more slowly and give it the appropriate emphasis:

You say you don't agree but WHAT YOU SAY DOESN'T MATTER.

WHAT YOU RUN MATTERS and you're running code that relays transactions on a network that enforces rules you clearly don't agree with.

I'm not saying you should leave, I'm saying you can.  I'm suggesting it might serve your cause better than your current methods of lying about "developer control" and the other general shit-stirring you seem to believe is effective.  It's clearly not having the desired effect.  You're not having any success at changing this network, so the next best option open to you is to build a new network that proves your ideas are viable.  But good luck with that, because they aren't viable.  At all.  Which is probably why you're still here.

I have to ask at this stage... are you a masochist or something?  Again, you're free to stick around and keep doing it, but I honestly can't tell what you're getting out of it unless it's some sort of pleasure from pain thing.  I mean, you're not blind.  You can obviously see the 9000+ nodes running code you absolutely despise.  Then you see your pitiful, miniscule, insignificant, handful of nodes running code you like, but it doesn't even touch the sides.  You are wholly impotent.  And yet, you seem to think your best course of action is to stay on this network and then spend vast quantities of your spare time whining about it like a total pussy because you can't get what you want?  Seriously?  If you had a hope in hell of getting what you wanted, then sure, stick around and fight for it.  But as we've established on numerous occasions, not only is what you want impossible, it's also terrible.  The numbers against you are insurmountable.  If anything, support for your ideology is diminishing rather than growing.  No amount of your insane protests are going to change what is clearly a total failure on your part to present a compelling case.  But whatever, stay and keep derailing topics.  It's not like you're having any impact other than being a general annoyance.

all i read is doomad having no clue and just insulting..

typical
may he spend more time researching and less time insulting, he may see what real consensus is, and not the twisted mistaken version taught to him by his buddies.


fixed that for you

its getting real easy to spot whos bubbies with who because theres the obvious repeat same misguided concepts taught to them by certain people.
one day they will learn about consensus.

one major reason i know doomad has no clue about consensus is because he and his chums do not believe in the need of byzantine generals(decentralisation of power). they believe there only needs one general(centralisation), and a bunch of loyal soldiers(distribution). they just have not really grasped the concept of decentralisation.... or maybe its not of commercial interest to them to want bitcoin decentralised anymore, and instead just distributed soldiers of loyalty following one general

one day they will learn about consensus.
but until then all i see is people trying devilishly hard to not let people talk about the "dev state" situation thats has arisen since 2013+

seems a particular buddy group appear to want to defend "dev state" and not protect bitcoin network security of a community
well give it a while and when "dev state" move on, retire, get hired on other projects. i wonder what doomad and his chums would do next..
as i think these fanboys really dont understand that devs are not immortal and favouring "dev state" more then the bitcoin network is their flaw

goodnight.

 i think if i'm in the technology 2.0. i hope the safety is improved. i'm very hate the hackers

Even after lightning network, Bitcoin is slow compared to other cryptos. So I would change block times, transaction fees and transaction throughput.

Then how should the Core developers organize themselves to develop the protocol? No public repositories?


But isn't it true? Anyone can make a pull request.

I am of the position that anyone can propose ideas. But the stupid, and less-competent ideas will not be accepted.


Who activated the changes?


Are they really the king? I believe they are in charge of development because they are competent.

you cant create a bitcoin 2.0 success just with tech upgrades

Transaction speed is one major factor that is stopping widespread adoption. Then we wouldn't have these shitcoin forks dumping the market, and less altcoins claiming to be the new bitcoin

Ah yes, the inevitable point in the thread where Franky1 thinks telling people to research stuff will somehow make them agree with him.   ::)

Your years spent studying and researching Bitcoin somehow led you to see tyranny.  Mine, freedom.  I can't even begin to imagine how you think you've learned anything and would be in a position to teach anyone anything when you look at freedom and see tyranny.  You see conspiracy where there is none.  Your brain isn't wired up right.  People could research Bitcoin for the rest of their natural life and still not perceive things the way your special mind does.  Why not tell people to research the moon landings being fake?  Maybe you can call that a social drama and see if it helps your fruitless cause.



How can you fix it by saying something that is demonstrably untrue?  If you want elections, stick with the corrupt and bought system that still calls itself Democracy, when in practice, it's usually Plutocracy or Kleptocracy instead.  Consensus > Voting.  Bitcoin has never and will never be a democracy.

Screw your pathetic and antiquated notions of "voting".  Voting is centralised.  Voting is choosing a puppet to speak for you and then fail to do all the things they promised they would do in their manifesto.  Voting is choosing a middleman from a list of worthless middlemen.  Voting leads to corruption and lobbying.  The real power then stems from the money used to fund the election campaigns.  What we have is people freely expressing their will through code without a middleman.  We don't need people to speak for us.  We don't need to choose middlemen.  We aren't susceptible to corruption and simply buying the laws wealthy people want.  Why do you want to change what we have into something worse?



You are the misguided one.  You say that "up" is actually "down" and then when everyone asks what's wrong with you, you tell them there's a conspiracy to hide the truth from them.  



Not only do you keep trying to change the meaning of words like "consensus" and "decentralisation", but you keep forgetting about permissionless.  You avoid the word like the plague.  Probably because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Bitcoin does not have a General.  No single person or group is "in charge".  But yet you argue that one group is in charge and then expect people to take you seriously?  People have eyes.  They can see that you are wrong.  Just because 9000+ nodes happen to be running software made by one dev team, it does not mean that dev team are now "controlling the network".  If that dev team did something users didn't like in their next version, people might not run that software in future.  



You mean "Emergent Consensus", right?  That hilarious part where you try to pretend the type of consensus you want to see in Bitcoin just so happens to be the type of consensus that even the people who invented it can't agree on it and don't actually use it.  Because it's crap.   :D

I've clearly demonstrated my understanding of consensus.  All you've demonstrated is that you think consensus means "I can tell this group of developers they shouldn't propose new BIPs and we all have to agree on what code to write before it's even written and consensus is democracy when it isn't and Bitcoin used to have voting when it didn't and let's make up some more complete nonsense and tell people to research it even though it isn't true and forget what punctuation is and remember to mention social drama and blah blah blah typical Franky1 post blah blah kardashians", etc.

Nothing, BTC is perfect as it is.

by you thinking everything has to be done via "dev state" organising the development is again you and your chums not even understanding consensus in regards to the byzantine generals theorum
it seems you and your chums are stuck in the mindset of single controlbase of a single general HQ. and happy with it

but i do laugh that doomad thinks permissionless payments is his excuse to avoid understanding consensus of protocol (2 different things)
and then flip flops to also want LN (permissioned payment)

again for the many many many topics he does not understand
devs can write reams of code. they can write it how they like, they can even write it on the leg of a thai bride they contract with,, but the ACTIVATION should not be done in the tyranical way of 2017.

doomad would be in uproar if a non "dev state" team done what occured in 2017

but as always lets just let doomad insult and flipflop.
doomad doesnt want to understand a decentralised network that solves byzantine generals issue. he is happy in a world of only understanding single general and sheep loyal soldiers

thought if he spent the last few months actually doing research beyond his chums he would have learned a few truth about the real situation and not the diatribe spoon fed to him by his chums wanting their roadmap even at a cost of throwing people off the network to force their plan into action.

A lot of the time that's because they're less secure and less stressed.

I'd be more inclined to buy into all of these claims once they'd been maxed out for months without buckling while countless vultures circled. They may look rather less convincing then.

And you can't really get any faster than a lightning network. The question is how usable it's going to be and how many people use it.

the lightning network is about as much a "bitcoin feature" as coinbase.com is.
its a separate system for multiple coin utility involving vaulting up funds with another entity to then use a payment system of 12 decimal values, in an unaudited, non blockchain, non byzantine generals solving dataset system.

its not a bitcoin scaling solution, its a take user utility of the bitcoin network away from the bitcoin network and let users use another network.
much like how 19th century gold got vaulted up and people ended up playing with promissory notes that were redeemable by the co-signer that created the promissory note(know known as banks)

LN will end up requiring factories to both be watchtowers of channels and masternodes monitoring SEVERAL chains
which does not actually solve the issues of fullnodes.
also while average joe people are playing with 12 decimal payments on cellphone lite wallets, hoping to get rich routing thier own funds as a hotpotato game. in exchange for millibit income. will end up having to pay factories to be the entry/exit node.
and if you think average joe will be the full node factories. well goodluck with that hope.

the "dev state" know of LN issues and are happy to admit it has problems
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
problems which are mentioned in the first few sconds as problems they cant/wont find solutions to

we need to concentrate on bitcoins network utility, not creating side-gates to push people off network.
pushing people off network is the opposite of what bitcoiners should be doing. but as a few "dev state" supporters are showing, thats the agenda. dont like what "dev state" do F**k off, seems to be the mantra

We get it -- LN is a different protocol. What's wrong with that?

Coins are locked up with a smart contract. You're trying to imply LN involves trust when it doesn't in any way whatsoever. The whole point is to leverage Bitcoin's blockchain without bogging it down with unnecessary throughput. I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why the security model isn't sound.


Not true at all. Banks and promissory notes involve trust. LN doesn't.

hmm maybe if bitcoin 2.0 gibe us many many benefit i think it will be more good for us to make it happen. but if they dnont give us any benefit i think we can't do that

here is the devs themselves. straight from the horses mouths
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

1. locking funds into a factory. is a smart contract involving trust that the factory didnt make a 2-of-3 smart contract with users under the pretence of it seeming as a 2-of-2 smart contract (trusting the factory doesnt hold 2 keys). as even schnorr is designed to hide how many are involved

2. the non blockchain 'payment' a factory then gives to a users channel is then done on trust. that while the user then plays with the channel payment which as a opening channel, but unaudited tx. the channel partner has to hope the factory is not also offering the same locked funds to another channel

3. channels have to trust that users wont play around because LN is not a byzantine generals solution network. people can play around with the nodes as there is no community to orphan/reject payments.

4. channels have to trust once closing session to get a factory to aggregate channels and eith broadcast out(unlock) or re-payment new open sessions.. that they will do. (LN operates as a need to be online and a need to sign for acceptance)
LN is not just a PUSH tx model.

...
anyone that only wants to view the utopian hope. and not critically scrutinise the reality. is not a person that cares about security. but just views things on trust

Byzantine generals? How did we get there? Hahaha.

Bitcoin's development would not have reached where it is today if it wasn't organized. What you propose is chaos. Try running a project without an group of competent, lead developers. See how far that project will go.

if you dont understand then you have no clue about what blockchains solved in regards to decentralised money.
by not understanding the importance of byzantine generals theory in regards to bitcoin. then your other topic about "what bitcoin gave us".. is a hollow topic you started, because it seems you have not grasped it enough

by your preference of control and centralised groups, and non blockchain networks. its pretty clear you have not really looked into what bitcoin and blockchain is really about.

but i guess your chums never wanted to tell you about the whole history of bitcoin/blockchain and what bitcoin solved.. because your chums wanted you to concentrate on the centralising move people off the network mindset of recent years

and by the way before you have your predictable rebuttal.. distribution of compatible loyalty is not the same as decentralised consensus

but if you really at all care about bitcoins security. you will find doing some independent research outside of your buddy group will benefit you.

and the reason i kep saying do your own research is purely so that you cant claim i am spoon-feeding you biases..
its up to you to decide if you care/desire want to know whats real.
and best way to do that is do your own research independently without buddies with spoons feeding you

so instead you prefer having one puppet.. ok got that
so instead you prefer no choice... ok got that
so instead you prefer that no one can put their hand up that puppets ass and make it dance.. ok got that

again your advocating tyranny where you just want that sngle puppet to do what it wants and not have to listen to the community..
.. yep i got that

i know your mindset. i understood your mindset months ago.
the thing is.. your flip flops show you have not yet either:
admitted your own desire to yourself consciously
or you really do want tyranny but you dont want the sheep waking up and uprising

well goodluck

There is a lot to be improved, of course, but how much of the community have to think about it. For example energy consumption? It would be nice if there was something about it. But this is unfortunately not about the Bitcoin community.

now that the social drama of insults is put aside.

letss concentrate on the topic.

how would a rebirth of bitcoin look if the community got all the things they wanted.
1. multiple dev groups of independence who could all offer new features without REKT/mandated dilution efforts, but instead true consensus
2. concentrating on lean thin transactions of pushing funds to others without bloating via smart contracts(visa doesnt do smart contracts after all)
3. the limitation of transactions per block would be more of a demand/growth dynamic. rather than a reduce usage by moving offnetwork
4. not letting users have so much tx bloat that they could fill any block/sig limit with just 5 transactions
5. a fee mechanism that does not cause network wide increase in fee's for everyone due to one person spamming..
but instead causes the spammer to spend more if the spammer wants to bloat a block or spend every 10 minutes

the silly thing is the whole "cant buy coffee with bitcoin"
using the LN network involves locking funds . opening several channels, thereby splitting up the value into different channels just to HOPE for good connectivity. then HOPE the channel partners are online to authorise the funds hops. and hope other people dont route through you and take your balance before you get to spend it yourself.
OR
if you plan to deposit $60 worth of btc to cover a fortnight of coffee and a few sandwiches in LN.. just use BTC to buy $60 of giftcards

describing the easy solution to coffee and also raising point 2.. over complicating and adding bloated features doesnt help. its easier to just keep things lean and simple and just have a open payment network that just openly pays.

the silly thing about the whole "energy consumption"
more energy is wasted keeping bottles of coca-cola chilled, than bitcoin. bitcoin miners have already made the watts per hash very very efficient.
if w were to CPU mine bitcoin at todays hashrate. it would require TRILLIONS of cpu's, billions of GPU but only a few million ASICS. and the power consumption of an ASIC is only ~3pc's
millions*3 is better than trillions
i can guarantee you that the number of computers in bank cashier counters, ATMS, bank call centres, Visa warehouses, bank HQ, wall street surpasses bitcoins electric utility

Lightening network and fees of transactions these are the major concern for new bitcoin version hopefully we will see these two important factors in upcoming versions

There are obviously security trade-offs when you compare to Bitcoin. That's to be expected when you're getting nearly free and instant transactions using a trustless protocol.


This can easily be prevented at the wallet level. It's trivially easy to prevent and isn't an effective mode of attack. Users won't have to think about this and significant nodes/hubs engaging in that sort of behavior would be quickly outed and ostracized.


It's not based on trust. You just keep repeating that. All parties connected to the "factory" can see its commitments on chain. Everything is "audited." See here (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/70rz9z/how_does_lightning_network_avoid_double_spending/dn5kr77/) for a simple explanation.


Trust is not required because 1) the Bitcoin blockchain arbitrates disputes among channel participants and 2) LN punishes dishonest participants by allowing the other party to take the offenders' coins from the channel.

LN uses Bitcoin for Byzantine fault tolerance.


It's not entirely clear what you're saying. LN nodes need to be online to update channel state but failing that, channels can just be closed based on expiration of locktime.

It is always like this – common people know what should be done better than developers. I am not sure that my recommend will work.

1. users will have to think about it becaus users (99% of people) will be using cellphone apps.. thus trusting the 'significant nodes(factories)/hubs (who is the app creator)*
2. quickly outed? the significant nodes/ will be the ones holding users funds. and needing their signature.*
3. by a user trying to broadcast a tx from a cellphone app. guess who they API send it through... yep the server (app company) who are the factory/significant node of concern*
 
its like having a payment dispute over an applepay tx. but your using apples app. and they have 2 signature authority vs your 1 signature in a 2-of-3 signature scheme, which under schnorr you will not realise its a 2-of-3, you will be optimistic that its a 2-of-2, and have to trust that is the case.. until its too late


your link is an example concept where a blockchain confirmed tx used as the peg for a inchannel open session.. thats like an outdated concept from 2017.
the concept is now you blockchain confirm and lock with a factory.
the factory then sends out unconfirmed non blockchain 'balance' to your wallet. and then you use that balance to open channels
making you 2 hops separated away from the blockchain proven tx

seems you trust things too much.. optimism about utopia vs critical thinking is where optimism is the flaw of trust
LN does not use bitcoin for byzantine fault tolerance. bitcoin does not stop a factory from altering its code at a whim.
users cellphone app is at the mercy of the factories whim

what your saying about LN is like saying bitcoin solves the issues of coinbase.com
oh and if you do manage to get a raw tx and broadcast it without cellphone API to your factory(because they wont relay if they are malicious)
they will simply treat you as the one in the wrong and thus send out their own tx revoking you.
yes its possible..
.. and yes you end up having to trust that they wont. and trust that because there isnt any scam accusation posts about certain factories that the factory/cellphone app company you use is trustable*

i guess you really havnt used/testd LN. or if you have you only used it under th limited 'ill stay in the only use as intended' remit.. and not been critical to bug test it via the 'play around swing a bat around and see what breaks' remit

sometimes optimism(trust and dreams) are not good. yes they feel good. but when it comes to securing funds. not good

*i know what you are thinking.. the old 2017 concept (pre factory) of be your own node.
well you do realise that LN concepts are now master nodes monitoring multiple chains like vertcoin, lightcoin and bitcoin..
which if you were a critical thinker rather than an optimist of trust. will make you realise this:
1. when your at a coffee shop will you be bringing your laptop/desktop with you running a masternode to buy coffee?
2. if your computer is ok to run a masternode of several blockchains. then its man enough to just run one blockchain of larger scale, so why debate that bitcoin cant scale due to home computer limitations if your home computer isnt as limited as you care to admit by saying you can run a masternode for several blockchains
3. 99% of people wont be masternodes.

How you could derive such utter falsehoods from my words is beyond comprehension.  Once again, you're literally just making shit up.  I prefer freedom.  I will continue to defend that preference against your incessant lies and manipulations.  Users have a choice.  They're making that choice right now.  You just don't like it.  Your idiotic notions of "voting" are worthless.  Here, we run code.  That's all that matters.



My mindset is that I respect the decisions which those securing this chain have made.  You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.  That's not how consensus works.  

You want everyone to follow you, but no one is, so you pretend something must be wrong with how things work.  Why wouldn't everyone naturally want that things you want?  Oh right, it must be a conspiracy.  An all-powerful cabal of developer overlords preventing users from making decisions for themselves.  Clearly everyone has been brainwashed into downloading and running their software.  They don't have the free will or self-determination to do anything else, such as run the client you're running, for example.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact your ideas are stupid and no one cares about them.  Yep, definitely a conspiracy.   ::)

Stop pretending you speak for the community.  They speak for themselves by running the code that enforces their will.  All you speak is a total load of bollocks.  

users have a choice :: there is no voting
                        flip :: flop

make up your mind
your confusing people running a node because there its the only way to not use a custodian for coin storage.. with the consensus vote of being able to activate/object to activating new features(which has slowly been diluted and lost)

people dont run core to have a free will independant choice of what features the network should/shouldnt have.
people run core just to not have to use a custodian for their coins

core are very much in control of the features and rules of the network. not by user choice. but by actions done by the "dev state" over the years

as for your personal attacks.. you make me laugh.
i dont want people to follow me.. show me some code i made that people should follow
show me some code that has mandated activations.

its also why. i say to people to do their own research. i even say that its best not to just be spoonfed from their social buddy/chum groups but do independent research
but you have been adamant you would prefer to argue and tell me i should leave the community, rather than actually recognise what independant thoughts, opinions and open community are really about.

if you dont like my open thoughts and opinions. hit the ignore button. its simple

now, how about you look passed your love and adoration of "dev state" and notice their actions which you keep trying to deny, even when they fully admit it. as that is the biggest flaw in your rebuttals. they are happy with their "dev state" status.
im not sure why you defend them by denying the actions they are happy to admit

as for saying the community run the code that enforces their will.
you yourself have been promoting the non vote/ compatibility of where users dont get to tell devs what devs can and should do

maybe best you really did take some time and research.. or atleast have a coffee and think about are you flipping or flopping. choose one and stick with it.

you are soo in the authoritarian mindset of wanting "dev state" to reign supreme. you have even admitted that even before i write any code for anyone to review/use you will REKT it.. simply because it opposes "dev state"

also your soo stuck in the authoritarian mindset that you believe that those not wanting core to be the "dev state" authoritarian, must mean the opposer wants to be an authoritarian
yet you cannot actually understand a system of multiple teams on an equal level play ground that all dont use mandated crap, and instead let consensus play out.

you only reside leadership, a dominant brand. where they set their agenda and no one can tell them what to do or not do.
its like you dont understand true freedom. but only recognise a tory/monarch empire as being "freedom"

you call that being "open to freedom"... pfft

as for your UNRESEARCHED fake beliefs that 95% are core loyal

https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=1037
only 65% are full nodes
majority of that are actually not run by humans at home independantly but are sybil nodes on amazon, hertsner, digital ocean

and as you keep on promoting people dont vote, people dont need to upgrade as they are "compatible"
so people are not 95% loyal.

now have a coffee relax for a while, destress yourself and self rview if your foing to flip or flop.
or you can just ignore my opinion and hit the ignore button

again for emphasis. i have not and have have nor ever will be trying to sway people into a authoritarian regime. i simple desire to wake people up to the one that already exists since 2013. so that people can see how things have changed since 2013

i have made no code demands of people. nor have i mandated change. i just openly offer my opinion and tell people to go do some independant research

you dont like it? hit the ignore button.

and stop telling people if they dont like the authoritarian regime they can simply "f**k off".. as thats just soo anti freedom

anyway putting aside mr meanders personal attacks yet again.

back to the topic at hand
summary of my opinion
1. not bloating the blockchains with smart contracts aimed to push people off network will strengthen utility on network because it keeps people on network.(pushing people offnetwork is not scaling bitcoin. its like telling americans to use canada's payment system due to american system limitations is not increasing USD usage)

2. making transactions lean (hard drive real byte storage for full validatable tx data) would allow the transaction count to not decline (making smart transaction formats more popular REDUCES tx count byte per byte as they are heavier)

3. not having wishy washy code that forgets to count bytes in code, to bypass hard drive byte storage rule, (witness scale factor is just partly it)
or
4. simply remove the rule if the hard drive ends up storing more bytes than the rule imposed is meant to prevent.(because the rule is then redundant anyways)

5. removing the witness scale factor allows full 4mb utility, and removes the fake tx fee promotion. as witness scale factors doesnt actually discount segwit users. it actually just makes legacy 4x more expensive.(code shows legacy fee as *4... it does not show segwit fee / 4)

6. make transactors who wish to bloat/spam the blockchain be the ones punished by costing that bloater/spammer more. rather than making the average transactor pay more due to one persons actions

yes i do expect a certain meander object that any idea's of change not advocated by "dev state" are wrong/bad/should not be allowed to even be discussed because it doesnt fit the "dev state" roadmap
but there lays issue which number 6 should address.

7. have a network of independant teams that dont get rekt for opposing a "dev state" by there not being a "dev state". instead have it so anyone can propose anything. and it only activates if there is true consensus (2009-2013 consensus)

show me my undermining code that will make unilateral changes..

also read my footnote
"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at"

im not the dictator here. but your anger, hostility, swearing, curcing and trying to say i should leave the community. and your desire to REKT anything not core.. are very very revealing of what your desires are.

if you dont like what people discuss. then maybe you should b the one that avoids a discussion forum.. or atleast

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button
http://www.stickpng.com/assets/images/580b57fcd9996e24bc43c44b.png

::)

This is what you quoted from my post when you were barking about your so-called "dev-state", and the Byzantine generals, which I do not get the connection,


How did you arrive from the "dev-state" to the Byzantine generals? Is it because there was a word "king"? Haha.

If I had an opportunity to change Bitcoin i'll probably leave it as it is and let everyone suggest whatever they want. Everything has to be discussed thoroughly before putting any changes in to action because it may do more harm than good. If any changes were rushed we might experience some problems.

Imo it could've been done better since nothing is perfect and changes will come to make Bitcoin even better.

Edit:  These back and forth replies made the thread somewhat interesting to read.  :D 

Everyone? Sure, the incompetent and non-coders can propose anything, and make a pull request, but they should not expect any of their suggestions to be merged in the main branch automatically.

bitcoin 2009-2013 was designed so that there was no "general"(singular)
cypherpunks for decades were having issues of making digital money in a way that did not require a general(singular) and instead where generals(plural) had an equal playing field where consensus would form majority agreement

meaning different brands of nodes that can all HAPPILY(without rekt, without 'dont like it F**k off').. offr proposals which would only activate when TRUE majority consensus was reached(without rekt, without 'dont like it f**k off') and satoshi invented bitcoin because it solved all that..

but now we are in a one general barking out the new orders to their loyal soldiers. and if soldiers were not loyal. they were shot onsite

which is the opposite of the whole reason of bitcoin unique invention, which was to finally have a currency which solved the byzantine generals issue to allow more than one brand to actually be on a level playing field.

yet you and your chums do not like the idea of having generals(plural) that use consensus. you lot prefer a general(singular) with mandated upgrades and consensus bypassing upgrades that are done without soldier allegiance needed

as exampled
where you think everyone should have to do it via "dev state" repo where its not expected people to even get to the point of having their proposal put into code to even allow anyone to download it, to even have a chance of a community consensus.

You know full well that all of your unilateral changes have nothing to do with code and everything to do with telling people what they supposedly can or can't do.  Users ran code you don't like that utilised a softfork, so you say we shouldn't have softforks anymore.  A very small number of users ran code you don't like that had an activation date, so you say we can't use activation dates anymore.  You keep saying "show me the code", but nothing you're advocating can be achieved with code.  You're advocating a social contract.  Something vaguely akin to an honour system.  It's not viable.  You can't prevent people from coding something you don't like.  Accept it.  What you want is impossible.

//EDIT:  and if the community ever did find a way to stop people coding things they didn't like, it would be the client you are running that would be the first victim.  Be careful what you wish for and understand how much more you'd be complaining if we actually had the kind of Bitcoin you mistakenly believe you want.

mr meander AKA doomad pokes again
1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee
3. i am not advocating anything. i am saying bitcoin was designed 2009 to solve the issue of avoiding the need of a "dev state"(general(singular)) and instead where the bitcoin system works via community consensus of generals(plural). because thats the unique thing satoshi solved.
4. i know you want "dev state" to decide changes and have the community as just loyal soldiers just archiving data under the rules defined by dev state. you have been very clear on that. even to such an extent that before even writing public available code you have made it your mission to REKT anyone that opposes "dev state"

all you have done over the last few months is admit your a capitalist centralist where "dev state" are the kings and above the law and they deserve to be free. and everyone else should just be loyalists with no say. because you dont want community votes.. you just keep flip flopping to try hiding your desire. and you pretend you want freedom as long as it only applies to freely letting "dev state" to rule

Discussions tend to be more productive if you don't keep repeating the same thing over and over again when it's abundantly clear that what you are discussing is not possible to implement.  Or do I take it that you will finally stop saying roadmaps can't have softforks or activation dates when they clearly can?  You get told quite plainly in one topic that you can't prevent softforks and activation dates without sacrificing permissionless freedom, but all you do is move onto the next topic to repeat the same dumb thing.  

You could post your usual lies about me only supporting the one dev team, or you could accept the simple fact that the way things are now provides a healthier environment to alternative clients than the restricted environment you propose.  And don't pretend you aren't proposing it.  You've been saying it for months.  But if you're done saying it, then hallelujah.

oh jeez, you poke, so ill bite..

the reason you hate me repeating myself is because you hate me raising an issue you wish lay hidden under a rug. and you hate me making people aware of the issue. which makes your job harder to hide it.
i have told you many many times that the MANDATED bull crap is the opposite of consensus. but then you act ignorant that i said it and act even more ignorant that i prefer consensus. all so you can pretend im the one advocating for splits and mandated.. but thats your flaw

restrictive environment??
seriously you need to do some research
devs can and should be able to write what they like. this includes taking onboard things the community want.. your mindset is the devs should ignore the community and the community should not have a say.(your no democracy no vote proposal)

my mindset is more teams where there is no REKT campaigns. your mindset is to have REKT campaigns and one team

my mindset is to use consensus to decide.. your mindset is that there should not be a vote and that a certain team should just demand something activates on a date and push opposition off the network contentiously at a lower threshold

now how about go take that coffee, sit back, relax de-stress and really review your own flip flops and just pick what one you really prefer
libertarian capitalist socialist(open to all) decentralised network of consensus to solve the byzantine generals problem
or
capitalist centralised network with just loyalist distribution that just follow by compatibility of the single general
so use this posts discussing to be productive and choose to flip or flop. and stick with one

then if you really want to discuss things about bitcoin. try to stick to content of the discussion and not the author of discussion. if your agenda the moment you wish to reply is to just attack the author of a discussion. try hitting the ignore button instead. and no point acting the bitten victim of a personal comment as reason to reply. as it was you that done the initial personal poke

Quoted for posterity.  Let's hope you're finally starting to get it.  Any dev can code anything.  Otherwise the militant Core supporters (not me) will argue that alternative clients can't write the things they want to write.  Much like some people have tried to argue in the past, leading me to defend the rights of those alternative clients.  You act like I'm the enemy here, but believe it or not, my stance does a better job of preserving freedom for alternative clients than your stance. 

The REKT campaigns were the primary culprits of perpetuating the myth that other developers shouldn't be allowed to code what they wanted.  That means anyone who argues that Core can't use activation dates or softforks is only making it more acceptable for the next REKT campaign against an alternative client to say those devs can't do whatever they might be doing.  It's therefore the far more intelligent argument to make that anyone can code anything, even if you don't approve of it.  Think it through and you'll see that I'm right about this.

they can write anything. but thats different from should they be allowed to control the whole network using consensus bypasses
imagine it if other teams done it. im sure youll be up in arms. infact i already seen it you have demonstrated that you would REKT anyone that opposed core. so your a hypocrit when you think its ok for core to dominate and control but then hate it when anyone else even discusses a possibility of non core control...

again try to learn consensus
learn byzantine generals

again its about anyone can write what they like. but it doesnt mean they should get what they like.

EG you can write your name and number on a napkin all you like. but that doesnt mean you get the right to mandate a female to become your wife

....
back to the discussion topic of what a coin 2.0 should change

writing features should be something any team should be able to write and have their own proposal gateway without having you go through cores moderated/censored method. but where the feature is only activated using satoshis solution to the byzantine generals problem which is what made bitcoin unique to all previous distributed database models. not mandated activation to bypass consensus.. as that is just a standard database that just has loyalist copies distributed all following one dictator

You're still the only one who thinks there has been a "consensus bypass", but okay, whatever.  I know I'd defend the rights of alternative clients to use softforks and activation dates because it's up to users if they want to run that code.  I would argue that users should have that choice.  Freedom, etc. 



If you ever figure out the "how", I'd love to hear it.  Your so-called bypass was the result of people running code and you can't stop them doing that.

Thank you for asking a very interesting question. I would want it to be more scalable, more readily available to users, environment-friendly and stable. But, I know this is all wishful thinking ;)
The 2nd generation of cryptocurrency is slowly and steadily moving towards what I have mentioned here, and it will be only time when we can have what we want.

flip:

flop:

flop:

flop:

flop:

yes doomad, i noticed you deleted your posts to hide your dictatorship supporting rants.. and your flip flops. but you missed many

real funny thing. in your posts all you ever done was tell me what i shouldnt be doing. that i shouldnt discuss a certain topic, that i should not say x or y. and how if i wrote code how ud be the first to rekt me. and if you knew of a way early on to discourage me from being involved in bitcoin. you would use it..

and all i done was ask you to independently research a few things, without you being spoonfed info from certain people

good evening and goodnight. may you enjoy your social drama. just remember. if you dont like things i discuss there is always an ignore button. and as a reminder you cant try playing the victim of a bite when you were the one poking the bear

That's not a flip flop.  If you are incapable of comprehending the difference between voting and running code, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.  Democracy is weak.  Just like your "arguments".  



You are making shit up again.  You are a disgusting liar.  I had a notification on the 18th to say that one of my posts had been removed by a moderator.  I have deleted nothing.  

Sorry but I believe this is the use of the term "Byzantine Generals" problem. Because from all the Bitcoin texts I read, whenever that term is used in Bitcoin, it talks about how Proof of Work has solved the "Byzantine Generals" problem because it enables the network to reach a "truth" that everyone agrees upon without trusting each other or a central authority.

Wow! Nice thought! To personally, if would have a chance to make bitcoin 2.0.. .i will totally make it proof of stake! Currently we use so much power to keep Bitcoin alive!

nope
the blocks are just a collection of data that conform to the law. blocks and their PoW hash do not solve who/what is giving out the orders of what the law should be

PoW is just hashing a hash

do i really need to say it again to you same group of chums that seem to not understand bitcoin...
research consensus..

put it this way many other coins are sha256 PoW.. do you think their blocks are acceptable to bitcoin because of PoW.
PoW is just about giving  block a strong identifier that can easily show if data has been edited.
its consensus that decide the rules of whats acceptable format everyone should follow

if you think pre 2009 unsolvable electronic peer to per cash systems solution was PoW then i guess your next rebuttal will probably be a total satoshi denial and you would probably say how its gregmaxwell, luke and pieters boss that actually invented bitcoin.. (the old "Adam Back solved it with 'hashcash'" mantra)

There are no "orders".  Devs are producing code and people are choosing to run it of their own volition.  If they chose to run something else, the law would be different.  Running code is not a "vote" on what the law should be, it's literally enforcing the laws users want to enforce.  Not "what should be", but "what is".  We don't have to all come to an agreement on what the law "should be" before anyone writes the code.  People just select the code they want and start enforcing rules.  Enforcement may include rejecting blocks that don't conform to that law, or disconnecting other clients that don't conform to the law.  Those securing the chain decide what the law is.  Not devs.  


 

Say it as many times as you like.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus.  It's plain as day.  You've lied about it so many times that you've somehow managed to convince yourself it's the truth.  But it isn't.  It's not possible for us to "understand" the way you believe you do, because the things you're talking about only exist in your fevered imagination.  It's all in your head.  Your "understanding" is not based on anything real or tangible.  You only comprehend fairly tales and are totally oblivious to how things actually are.  9000+ nodes are clearly in agreement on what consensus is, which means you are demonstrably wrong.  Reality doesn't lie.  That's your specialty.

Honestly, I do not know what you are talking about anymore. We were talking about development and you were talking about the "dev-state" and the Byzantine Generals problem and how that in 2009 - 2013 the developers reached consensus and "reached the truth" without trusting each other?

What are you talking about?

I'd definitely look into improving the environmental impact bitcoin has.  The total worldwide power consumption could run a small country I believe ::)

Well, my answer will be according to the thread above not the reply respectively. If there would be a Bitcoin version, I think more authorized and reliable information towards the happenings with regards to Bitcoin for me ,it is important so that everyone is keeping in their own pathways, and not searching in the dark because of the current issues and process with relates to Bitcoin.