* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want?... Because, unlike you, I understand what LN is. ...What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.
People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense...
And that has what to do with anything I said? ...I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else....
Then why are you here? |
|
|
|
LN is not a solution, or even part of a solution; LN is a companion service, period.  |
|
|
|
In a couple of years lot of LN fan boys will hate LN because they've lost a lot of money and will say we were not properly warnded that on-chain is by millions more safe than off-chain...
Don't get me wrong, I am pro-LN (in the use-cases that it's actually designed for); I'm just also in favor of people understanding that LN is "part of" Bitcoin the the exact say way that their pretty pink piggy-bank is "part of" the US Treasury Dept. |
|
|
|
In a couple of years we will have lightning network....
* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The only thing worse than me finding out I was wrong about 1st vs successive blocks is reading the dumb shit people write whilst trying to justify what I was wrong about. |
|
|
|
Deleted everything but my wallet, loaded the new client, let it sync and get this...
If you binned the old data files, put them back. Either way, close and rerun with |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be optimal for Core to publish a statement that Segwit2x is a terrible option which they are strongly opposed to, then list the reasons why...
Given that some literally responded/voted LOL good luck with that. |
|
|
|
In a world where devs got it right and "it's only the 1st block" were true, devs would have anticipated a small mempool and compensated for it. I can't believe that this is all so dicked up that I'm actually rooting for Core to come out on top.  |
|
|
|
|
Q: What's wrong with "dummy" transactions to make up the difference?
A: Nothing, as long as 2 years from now you're OK with wasting 2-8GB of HDD space just because some idiot decided there should be a "minimum sized block" and you're in favor of being in direct opposition to scaling.
Q: What's wrong with waiting until the mempool supports the new block size minimum?
A: Let's suppose segwit reduces weight count by 30%. That means that it takes 30% more transactions to fill 1MB of space, compared to pre-segwit. That, also, means that when there aren't enough transactions to fill 1 block, that block will take 30% longer to fill and confirm. That further means that there would be 0 transactions left to start the next block and each successive block would take exponentially longer. This all means that, if segwit actually works, there could be times where there are 1 hour block times and 3 hours to confirm 6 blocks could become a regular thing. This is the diametric opposition to scaling.
|
|
|
|
....
I was wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've read in 60 pages. |
|
|
|
... I'm looking to make my first sizable purchase  Irony: Saying a business has too much of a monopoly, accusing them of covertly using "unfair" mining practices, and then buying a "sizable" amount of equipment from them.  |
|
|
|
...This needs to be stopped and making 1 MB the minimum size is a good step in ensuring that.
There it is, the dumbest thing I've read in 59 pages. Q: And what happens when there isn't 1MB worth of segwit transactions? A: 1 hour block times. |
|
|
|
|
Not all who have the desire to learn have the capacity to learn....
|
|
|
|
A couple dozen "GTX 1080 Ti"s, perhaps? |
|
|
|
*sigh*
How many times does it have to be said?
Developers. Are. Not. Governors.
Please get this batshit insane notion out of your head. And I mean all of you. Everyone on this forum who thinks any developers are somehow in charge or in control. You are fundamentally and utterly wrong in how you perceive governance. If someone was using the issue to claim that we need to change the way in which the consensus protocol works, that would be a change in governance. Every time some UASF supporter talks about excluding the miners from the equation altogether and forcing a POW change, THAT is a change in governance.
A hard fork resulting from a significant majority of those securing the network (that's a mix of both mining nodes and non-mining full nodes) freely choosing to run code enforcing new rules is exactly how Bitcoin was designed to work and is NOT a change in governance...
A-feken-men!  |
|
|
|
|
OK time for a reality-check for those that are just that bad at math:
When Joe Schmuckrok in Bumblefuck, Arkansas can buy enough miners to have a 90 day repayment rate and a $30K monthly income, Bitmain doesn't "want control of Bitcoin". If Bitmain wanted "control of Bitcoin", Joe Schmuckrok's 1.2PH/s would be in some nondescript bunker in the middle of China (along with about 3EH/s of miners that cost Bitmain about 10% more than they charged Joe Schmuckrok for his 1.2PH/s) running through a few dozen solo mining servers (each limited to under 20PH/s). Because, math!
|
|
|
|
...Why is it so hard to understand for some that nobody can "promise" a hardfork?
You can show your intention, but you can't promise a damn hardfork.
....
Actually, anyone that can create a wallet (a Core github fork or something new) that validates a single block (which is not validated on the existing chain) and only allows new blocks to be built upon the divergent block can create a hard-fork. Provided they can secure the hashrate to produce a single block (even if that block has to be created with a dif of 1 in order to be created), they can promise a hard-fork. Now, they cannot legitimately promise that said hard-fork will be adopted by anyone other than themselves, but anyone with more than 15 minutes on their hands can both promise and deliver a hard-fork.. |
|
|
|
Core does not control the protocol. They may appear to, but they do not. The community as a whole controls the protocol. The sooner we all realize this, the better.
The sooner "community as a whole" realizes that less than a handful of people control what Core is/does and how what Core is/does actually gives Core near total control of the protocol (even in direct opposition of the "community as a whole"), the better. |
|
|
|
Before any BSfanboy answers let me try: "No, you and you miner idiots have blocked all that nice stuff for that long now. We are not guilty!"  I'm all for someone explaining how it's all BM's fault now, but things on the list before BM even existed (back when the entire network hashrate was lower than what some random bumpkin in Arkansas now has in a 100'x100' barn) are still "future plans" that were " blocked by miners" way back then..... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
