look you see threads with the title True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest. and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth. |
|
|
|
core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?
Still willing to mislead others I see... LN isn't controlled, invented or owned by blockstream. Sidechains are opensource and anyone can run an elements alpha sidechain, you can even setup and run your own liquid sidechain yourself. You are also conflating core with blockstream which is both misleading and insulting to core which has a diverse set of backgrounds opinions and funding sources. Even if your were to ignore the fact that almost all devs aren't associated with blockstream and just focus on devs with commit access you will see this - gavinandresen (Gavin Andresen) - funded by MIT Media Lab and coinbase and bloq jgarzik (Jeff Garzik) - bloq (formerly supported by bitpay ) jonasschnelli (Jonas Schnelli) - digitalbitbox.com laanwj (Wladimir J. van der Laan) - MIT Media Lab sipa (Pieter Wuille Sort) - blockstream That is only 1 dev of 5 within core with commit access and 2 of those devs have even started their own competing implementations. How could you not know this by now ? Will you stop spreading misleading statements meant to spread unfounded conspiracy theories? Gavin and Jeff arent core devs... ( imagine Gavin committing his 2MB code into core Bahahahahah ) where jr luke in this list? and gmax ( they dont have commit access ? isn't segwit their baby? ) i'm not sure of the exact ties between core and blockstream. at the time, poeple arguing that there was a conflict of interest in the Core dev team seemed to have compelling evidence. I took that "info" as is, and assumed that most of the Core team was also getting paid by blockstream. |
|
|
|
You are correct... sometimes Adam seems to be all over the place......
being opened minded and willing to be a blacksheep, does that to you. core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects? not sure, but i'm willing to entertain the idea, and throw out crazy actuations to get some reactions. in the heat of the moment ( getting banned from bitcointalk.org, and talking to the bitco.in ), i may has said some nutty stuff. |
|
|
|
Maybe I am being too random, but to me, it seems that 75% is way too easy to accomplish change, and 25% is way too many people to leave discontent in the event that there is a change.
I don't know what the numbers should be exactly, but 90% or 95% seems much more reasonable, especially when we are dealing with decentralized money / assets that are potentially worth billions and some day (hopefully soon) trillions of dollars.
just because 25% prefer one direction over the other doesn't mean they will fork off because the vote didnt go there way. 95% hashing power all voting for 1 option over an other means the that option is FAR superior. i dont think segwit will be able to achieve this 95%. ( even if they count all non-voting hashing power as segwit votes ) but we'll see... |
|
|
|
Than you have the nerve to come here and try and appear to be neutral or impartial. So what is it , did you pull a 180 within a week or do you have a split personality?
i can be reasoned with if thats what you mean. but i'm not neutral... i do believe both directions have merit, but i favor big blocks. the more i talk about it the less i feel strongly about either direction. I plan to yield to majority, but thats hardly a reason to not debate the topic from my prefered point of view. |
|
|
|
|
I can't wait to see what bitcoin looks like a year from now
It will be quite interesting to watch the second layer take shape.
I disagree with the majority will to change the status quo by such a degree, but i can't help but be curious as to how it will all unfold.
I believe both schools of thought have merit and its hard to say which is best, in anycase either direction is better than simply doing nothing.
|
|
|
|
that solves the problem for miners, but what about the users? i guess i misunderstood. where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.
isn't it easier to introduce a SF??
Adam, you were trying to say that hard forks were easier to implement than soft forks, only a post or two ago. What changed? hmmm i said HF might be preferable not easier. |
|
|
|
contentious HF's aren't evil, and implemented with 75% tigger + grace period they are hardly contentious. its silly to think everyone will agree on all changes, and its even sillier to not implement a change that the supermajority want to see. HF might actually be favourable over softforks, poeple who run machines which secur people's money have a responsibility to run a well oiled machine. A few SF later and now nodes on the network might start to have undefined/different behaviours, this will complicate things and hinder future developments.
we will see this first hand with segwit. the effective block size incress might not be be so effective.
one day Core will require a HF for some new thing they want to add...
If you really think about what you are saying Adam, you should come to the opposite conclusion. We don't want people fucking with our money and to be able to change bitcoin so easily. Currently bitcoin is secure, and we want it to be very difficult to change. If you believe that you want it to be able to change easy, then you have been taken for a ride by people who really want to undermine bitcoin (possibly unwittingly). The various upcoming changes for bitcoin are going to be incremental, good and keep bitcoin secure with people's money. For everything else, there's visa. hahahahahahaha  where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy? its obviously proving to be very very hard. isn't it easier to introduce a SF?? |
|
|
|
Good lord, what a shit nest this thread has become. I can't believe I actually read through everything since the last time I looked at it. I've seen less name calling watching WWE Smackdown.
3-4 years ago every other thread was about the government interfering with Bitcoin. What could the big bad government do to destroy poor Bitcoin? Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore. The users and developers are going to destroy it. Everyone thinks Bitcoin is just fine because the price is high and stable. I guess no one remembers MtGox and the world of the artificial price.
everything is fine, our bitching is confined to this thread, and no one bothers to read it except for a handful of poeple. |
|
|
|
Given today's technology, 2MB would be a bad idea tomorrow. Miners that are using RLN could support 2MB blocks without even noticing. For normal nodes -blockonly could do the trick. According to gmax this would save 88% of bandwidth. Now if you're worried about nodes not relaying txs, just do not use -blockonly and convince Core dev to apply Xthin to BitcoinCore. You could save a lot of bandwidth while propagating new blocks (more or less 10 times less BW required) . Well, that solves the problem for miners, but what about the users? Remember, I said "tomorrow". Thin blocks/IBLT are not available on the network tomorrow. But in principle, I agree, it's just that "tomorrow" part. afaik thin blocks will benefit user node just as much as miner nodes? there available now, no? the code has been written and is working on some nodes ( BU nodes right? ), Core just needs to copy past. is it part of the plan to add that in at some point? does core have reasons for not wanting thin blocks? |
|
|
|
|
contentious HF's aren't evil, and implemented with 75% tigger + grace period they are hardly contentious. its silly to think everyone will agree on all changes, and its even sillier to not implement a change that the supermajority want to see. HF might actually be favourable over softforks, poeple who run machines which secur people's money have a responsibility to run a well oiled machine. A few SF later and now nodes on the network might start to have undefined/different behaviours, this will complicate things and hinder future developments.
we will see this first hand with segwit. the effective block size incress might not be be so effective.
one day Core will require a HF for some new thing they want to add...
|
|
|
|
will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?
nobody wants to central plan some grand design of how this will all look, it should just evolve with free market solutions  are second layer payments free? i mean say i want to use Lighting Network to buy a coffee what kind of fees can i expect? I expect they will be quite minimal as the computational resources required for a Lightning transaction are orders of magnitude less than an on-blockchain transaction. Take a look at the current electrum server-client system (all volunteer servers) to get an idea of what it might look like in terms of computational costs. The free market will drive LN transactions fees down to marginally more than their computational costs which are small as I said. Internet of Things apps should be able to utilise LN (or payment channels) for negotiations and very small trades for fractions of resource swaps, etc. well opening and closing the channel requires a ( larger than normal ) Blockchain TX so unless you're going to reuse the channel 100's of times, the cost/TX on LN will not be many orders of magnitude less. I can't wait to try LN ( i'll need a nice simple User Interface ) myself, it sounds cool, but I feel uneasy about banking bitcoins future on somthing i haven't tried yet. what if its not at all user friendly, do you care about this? |
|
|
|
will bitpay accept TX form the second layer? Why wouldn't they? What asset do you think we're talking about, exactly? will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far? Some links were recently posted, where various wallet developers and library maintainers stated that implementing Segwit was not a big deal at all. And I'm not talking about nobodies like "Iguana." I'm talking about Mycelium, Electrum, Breadwallet, GreenAddress, Blocktrail, Libbtc, BitcoinJS etc. But you keep on repeating this same tired line. was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?
The point was to implement necessary changes while allowing for some more throughput (kicking the can), to give time to develop IBLTs, weak blocks, LN... Payment channels are crucial. **Satoshi saw that. The point is to scale (optimize). Please stop clamoring for endless bloat and recognize that decentralization is the only thing that gives bitcoin any value whatsoever. And nobody should give a shit about Bitpay or Coinbase. Their current business model--thus VC/shareholders--depend on cheap/free bitcoin transactions. So the fuck what? They can optimize their business plan or be brushed into the dustbin, like every other shit company that goes bankrupt. I certainly don't allow some corporation's shareholder interest to dictate my interests as a bitcoin user and node operator. Classic supporters say Blockstream controls Core--the answer is Coinbase controlling Classic? No thanks. Still waiting on any evidence that says Blockstream controls a goddamn thing. Remember how Bitpay lost 5,000 BTC/$1.8m in a security lapse? Yeah, not interested in careless fucks like this having any say over the protocol. **side note i'd love to see a link which back up your statement " Payment channels are crucial. Satoshi saw that " see thats what i'm talking about so you agree that making second layer the primary scaling solution will require an overhaul on almost all bitcoin businesses that process bitcoin payments for whatever reason. your answer to that is "tough shit", fair enough... decentralization gives bitcoin value, but its not the only thing that give it value clearly altcoins are nowhere near as decentralized as bitcoin yet they command a market price none the less. i'm not sold on the idea that every single user needs to run a full node for bitcoin to be considered decentralized. |
|
|
|
lol 2 TX fees for the price of 1  No. You use (or should use) payment channels for multiple payments to the same entity. So instead of paying the fees for, say, 10 transactions, you only need to pay the fees for 2. Edit: If you are asking about the Lightning Network, I highly suggest that you read the whitepaper: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf. It goes in depth into how it is all supposed to work and how it prevents people from committing fraud. yes i am talking about LN. let's say I want to pay Alice 0.1BTC for a service she frequently renders ( weekly ) will LN be useful to us? of course Alice needs to be able to spend the funds i give her weekly... so my question is, when the channel is opened and a 0.1BTC signed and handed off, will Alice be able to use those funds or does she have to wait until the channel is closed to make use of the money i give her? edit:
it seems possible... page 44..47 appear to talk about how this would be done, sounds kinda nuts, and i dont know how reliable/practical this would be in a long chain of Lighting "payments". its going to be very interesting to try and use this Lighting Network when it is made available to end users. |
|
|
|
lol 2 TX fees for the price of 1 |
|
|
|
will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?
nobody wants to central plan some grand design of how this will all look, it should just evolve with free market solutions are second layer payments free? i mean say i want to use Lighting Network to buy a coffee what kind of fees can i expect? are we expected to open a channel buy a million coffees and then close it? |
|
|
|
|
will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
