show me the money!
lightning network sounds good, but its not like its widely used and has been peer reviewed for vulnerabilities.
i dont think we should bank on unproven tech.
but ya it sounds very cool.
This thinking pattern is very wrong. Please stop spreading the toxic mindset. Instead of constanly complaining about everything, you could try helping. There was a period in time where the shills used the "LN is vaporware." tactic which was quickly disproved. LN is in development by various groups and you can't expect it to be reviewed and tested already. |
|
|
|
Core is junk.
Without Core there would most likely be no Bitcoin today (or it would exist as a very outdated 'version'). Nice way of showing your appreciation for everyone's work. I don't even understand how you could bash "Core as a group" as there are many individuals with different views that contribute to it. About to be replaced
No. |
|
|
|
This is much worse than trolling.Trolls never hurt anybody's sentiments.
It can; trolling is just a waste of time, especially on a forum like this. How could you expect to have a decent discussion with someone if trolls kept attacking you from every angle?
As far as the person quoted is concerned: Even though technically you are allowed to use offensive language and whatnot, cases in which the user is only being abusive and does not add anything to the discussion will be dealt with. This goes against the first two rules as listed in this section. |
|
|
|
Again you try to twist words.
Nope. No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage.
Isn't. There is adequate transaction capacity in the blocks right now. Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too.
I need not show anything. You don't understand how algorithms work nor why the worst-case scenario is important. Nothing more needs to be said. Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion.
The fact that you are putting 'coders' into the same basket as engineers makes you look very uneducated. Please refrain from doing so. Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too.
"SPV Mining is a bad idea." - Gavin. Now it is being implemented in Classic.  You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen.
He used to be good, as in past tense. He still has the second most commits on core.
He doesn't. |
|
|
|
Ok, and didn't some core dev lately switch to work for a bank?
Even if they did, it doesn't matter. Core consists out of a lot of contributors, employed by various companies. Besides that, one could see a conspiracy theory behind lightning network and the negation of a raise of the blocksize too. Since what will happen when a minimum transaction will cost $1, $10 or more at one time? I mean LN plans to make bitcon the settlement layer for LN. Which makes companies will decide the fees to be paid in the bitcoin network. The more transactions can be put into one single bitcoin transaction the higher the value of the bitcoin transaction and the higher the fees on the bitcoin network can rise.
This is just hyperbolic, fear-inducing, speculation. The thinking behind this is flawed. Why would anyone even consider using Bitcoin if a transaction costs $10 (i.e. when there are much cheaper options)? The Lightning Network is a amazing 'feat' when it comes to scaling Bitcoin. There is no mainstream adoption without it (or some other, yet to be discovered, features), regardless of whether you want to believe this or not. Bitcoin is not efficient and can not process a lot of transactions on the main chain unless you harm its decentralization. Which means it won't take long until we see offers like offers from a bank offering to buy bitcoins directly in the lightning network. Only pushing bitcoins around on there, using a service connected to lightning network.
Baseless propaganda. May I ask who slipped this nonsense into your mind? |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging.
|
|
|
|
Please provide links in cementing your claim.
I was wondering when such a list was going to show up eventually. However, it does not have a 'strong case' without presented evidence. In order to simplify, it would be best to add a link or two for each person listed. I wonder how many new additions are gonna be added in the coming year or two.
I don't think that there should be that many more. Hopefully at least some people have learned their lessons. |
|
|
|
|
You are not going to get any help if you don't properly ask the question. First, you would need to tell us what you are trying to do. Once you do that, then we might be able to help you.
|
|
|
|
Things changed, Bitcoin Classic has very ambitious roadmap to my opinion (even though part of the features are from other teams like Bitcoin Unlimited), but if they deliver their roadplan as promised, Bitcoin Classic can help progressing Bitcoin in the right direction.
No. This roadmap has nothing specific on it. Additionally, they don't have evidence that support that dynamic block size limit proposal right now. That could end terribly if not properly designed and tested. I agree, the way things turned out lead many "fanatics" to communities that were supposed to be neutral. As a result places like /r/btc are now extremely one sided and favor a certain hard fork without any wilingfulness to make compromises. Behaviors like that only make bitcoin's image to the outside world worse and slow down progress. I wish that more people from /r/btc would work on proposals and be open to discussion instead of trying character assassination against Core supporters. 24/7
It is not just the unwillingness to make compromises. The main problem for which the subreddit is useless is that they're being constantly negative and constantly use ad hominem and whatnot to undermine several people (e.g. Core developers as you've mentioned). Usually, anyone who disagrees with their view will get bashed. |
|
|
|
I am having trouble finding a source, however it appears that the following rule is missing:
33. Posts about the moderation of a thread, or about the moderation of the forum in any thread outside of Meta is automatically off topic
I don't see why this should be a rule. It is indeed missing, but it would be a better fit it was added to the Guidelines for threads. On the other hand... if someone doesn't know about that rule or this thread then he would feel treated very bad... or made to shut up. So it only might put on to sentiments about the moderation.
Not really. All that usually happens is that someone reports the thread and it gets moved. |
|
|
|
Are the fees too low???
Short answer: Yes. You can always get better information if you take a look at Blocktrail (rather than using Blockchain.info). If you take a look at your transaction now, the included fee is per KB is 0.00019790 BTC. This is just a tad above the low priority fee per KB of 0.00018342 BTC and quite below the recommended fee per KB of 0.00032494 BTC. The fee was too low to get into the last block (25 mins ago) with the back log..
Your tx should confirm within the next block or two.
There's really no backlog. Block interval are unusual sometimes and people should be aware of this by now. In this case, the fee is well below the recommended one and it will take some time before it confirms. |
|
|
|
Lightning network is just the first example of can be done building on P2SH with payment channels.
The lightning network is a great achievement. It is quite unfortunate that people are bashing it. LN has a theoretically infinite capacity. It is absurdly more efficient than transacting on the main-chain in addition to being both decentralized (it should be) and secure as well. It is currently the only known way for Bitcoin to scale towards mainstream adoption. The problem right now is the paucity of imagination and talent, made worse by distractions like appeals to get-rich-quick solutions, short-termism, etc.
Indeed. These controversial forks are just disruptions. I'm certain that a lot of time has been wasted (time which could have been used for developing).
Sometimes I get this feeling that these discussions are going in loops. It can get quite tiring at times. |
|
|
|
|
Well, you could first start by clarifying your question. [1] This seems a bit confusing right now. I'll try to answer though: Basically you are technically allowed to create an unlimited amount of topics. However, it is very discouraged to create a topic about a subject if a thread about it already exists. You are allowed to create a secondary thread when someone created a self-moderated thread. Usually creating duplicate threads sometimes won't get you into trouble, but if are persistent it just might.
[1] - Rephrasing your question should help.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Classic would start implementing marxist BIPS in notime if they would get in charge, and would start redistributing coins as well.
Initially it was promoted as Bitcoin Core with a 2 MB block size limit patch, and now they've started implementing some strange features (SPV mining). Obviously the advertising was misleading ad best. Its hard for new people to grasp everything that is going on but the shill aspect is obvious for both sides.
Indeed; this is very obvious on the reddit page. It would not surprise me if some people got paid along the way to switch sides. Well they think that they have the solution to move bitcoin forward, however they way that they try to promote their agenda is by spreading FUD.
Indeed. Garzik had a backroom meeting with the miners and they've declined support (IIRC) as Classic does not have a long term plan in addition to not having an adequate team of developers. |
|
|
|
That's what I'm talking about too, see your sig (which, presumably, pays, idk). Is /r/bitcoin also paying people to post?
How should I know that when I don't use reddit? So yeah, this forum has more posts, but ~95% of the content is:
1. Insipid pay2post bullshit, most of it in embarrassingly broken/misspelled/mispunctuated English. I'm not a native speaker myself, but content like that shoo' makes bitcoin enthusiasts look like illiterate morons.
It can't really be avoided nor is it up to me. 2. Red vs. Blue bullshit: You suck/are a shill because you don't like what I like.
Blame the controversial forks for this. r/btc is bad bad bad. I thought the joint was gonna be a refreshing alternative but it's maybe the worst of the bunch.
Nobody should use it as a 'source of news'. |
|
|
|
Should bumps for 3/4/5 year old threads be reported? I've been seeing some posts being made on old threads like these which don't make any sense whatsoever... But there isn't really a rule for that as far as I could see.
Yes. Technically not always, but I'd say that in 99% of the cases that I've seen so far they were useless necro-bumps. These are usually created by bots, or spammers. Only in rare cases where the person really does contribute and does not want to create a new thread are they left intact. You could always send them to a moderator directly if you aren't sure. You might consider moving or closing the thread, rather than arbitrarily deleting posts in the pretence that the Wall Observer has a topic.
I don't moderate it. |
|
|
|
gavin usg-bip-turds would have killed bitcoin.
Well, it does seem like people have forgotten that 20 MB block size limit was "urgent" in 2015 according to him. Here we are in 2016, still at 1 MB and everything is fine. The real value is on Bitcoin as a new and better gold, so I see whales coming in, and people with some sort of portfolio.
The real value comes from the decentralization and censorship resistance. Bitcoin will go to trillion dollar marketcap by then, but by then we should have LN working.
The Lightning Network is the only proposal so far that would enable Bitcoin to catch up with Visa. If Bitcoin relied on the block size limit, then it would always stay far behind (currently only 3 TPS, and Visa ~2000 TPS on average). Unfortunately, there are users that are bashing the people who are working on making LN a reality. |
|
|
|
So you believe you know more about my motivations than I do myself. Interesting god complex you have there.
Interesting ad hominem you have there. I dunno. Seems to work for TCP/IP.
Apples and oranges. It just doesn't work that way.  lol just kidding Lauda. we dont all need to get along but fuck let's try and be more tactful, every other thread someone is blasting one another, before or after making point. Nonsense. I have no relationship with any developer nor anyone related to Blockstream. I've been attacked in several various ways for pointing on the flaws in Classic. These attacks have been useless though. I try my best to avoid attacking people directly and usually put ridiculous people who have no real arguments (but chose to use ad hominem) to ignore. If more people were being reasonable in discussions, open to being wrong and compromise, in addition to avoiding ad hominem, maybe we could have avoided this whole 'mess'. |
|
|
|
It is not even a discussion. I think that slowly big blockers will come down to earth and realize their mistake on their scaling roadmap. If they realize this and still push for a big block agenda without caring about the side effect (node centralization) means they don't want the best for Bitcoin and they are here just hoping to short and get some dollars. What they don't get is a decentralized censorship resistant system is way more valuable in the long term than a datacenter-run Bitcoin.
Indeed. I've said this before: The only reason for which one would want to rush a capacity increase is greed. These people are hoping that a lot of new users are going to come on-board and that this will cause the price to go upwards. Anyone who thinks that Blockstream, or any Core developer with a stake in Bitcoin would want to risk harming the system is acting foolish at best. It is in their best interest to make Bitcoin a huge success. However, they aren't nearly as greedy as the 'forkers' (if, at all). Additionally, I heavily disagree with Gavin's BIP. Not only because of the bad design (it goes against everything that we've learned over the years), but also because of the added (new) limitations to the system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
