doomad

the kingscorpio thing has nothing to do with centralisation. its just a crappy website that no one really views or considers important, but kingscorpio treats it like the network relies on it.

however. in regards to things that actually do affect the bitcoin network/centralisation..  even by your own admission and such has shown that the network is far too reliant on core. your admiration and devotion to their tactics of control alone shout loudly how its the case. let alone the stuff i said

in short. show me how the network has changed due to code/protocol changes that didnt not involve core devs in the last say 4 years.

your own words of "compatible" when you talk about no vote needed. and "permissionless" when talking about their consensus bypass and how you admire that they get to control the network changes is where the centralisation lays. you really need to learn what the 2009-2013 consensus was all about, what the byzantine generals problem of pre2009 was about and how satoshi found the solution around it to make it so there doesnt need to be a single leader/controller/reference of the rules.

as for the fee formulae. delving into your mindset of your admiration for core and your (sometimes denial, sometimes loudly spoken) thoughts about cores permissionless ability.. yes i said core could write a fee priority formulae and activate it. after all with all the controversy around segwit, core still got their x1 via all the tactics they employed in summer 2017. so its not impossible. core are not just chimney sweeps that are powerless.

and i find it funny that when an idea is suggested that can improve things. suddenly the core defense league of echo chamber people suddenly pretend and flop around that core are then powerless and shouldnt be trusted to implement it.. purely because its not on their roadmap thus should not be implemented.

so atleast try to stick to one narrative. either man up and admit the centralised code updates and then only a DISTRIBUTION(sheep follow or thrown off network) of that code and stick to one narrative. or man up that your waffles are just social drama in an attempt to bore people into giving up discussing things not in cores roadmap via your meandering flip flops, just so core can follow through with their centralist plans unhindered by the community

by the way. reading all your insults. you are the cranky one. you especially get cranky and insulting when getting told to do something useful.. like research.

maybe spend less time on your social drama sideshow of personal waffles and actually start caring about bitcoin (not alternative networks/commercial services)

but have a good year.

go do some research. go watch some eastenders. go do somthing to atleast expand your views of bitcoin or your social drama limits

your flip flops and misunderstandings and denials of one thing to suggest another then flopping to deny another to suggest a further have become boring tactics of just social drivel that you continually try.

by implementing a fee mechanism can do things that counter your centralist mantra, while helping the community and pools and others.
waffle all you like to say that pools are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.
waffle all you like to say that users are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.

it was you that was emotionally spouting out your usual echo's that core can upgrade the network.. (remember your permissionless rhetoric). so dont now cry when i actually use your rhetoric against you to suggest core should do something that benefits a decentralised community.. because no one else can without getting rekt

(i can guess your next flip.. that core dont need to listen to community desires/needs/idea's, they will do what they want and ignore the community... which just circles back to the waffles listed above flops)

yes i get it anything to promote decentralisation you hate. but to then have you flop your own rhetoric about core and its compatibility and permisionless stuff.. is just you failing. moving from core being the trusted devs that you adore, to core just being chimney sweeps/janitors all in the space of a few posts is amusing to see you flop so much

end result
my OPINION and pure DISCUSSION is about things that can help. it is just words on a forum that harm no one
emphasis words on a forum. not code with mandated forks. so relax, dont get emotional

your reaction, i presume is that it might accidently open a few minds and have people want it, thus you fear that there may be a chance of it happening openly via a community open choice, without me even needing to write code. infuriates you.
it seems you actually fear the possibility of a NEW fee priority formulae being added as a consensus rule, you fear any discussion thats not optimistic to the centralist roadmap agenda

but oh well.
we all know you only want one direction of centralisation and commercialisation to occur. but beyond that you have become very boring with your unresearched flip flops.
especially when your flips flops are used against you.

but instead of trying to over-dramatise my comments. do some research
have a nice year,

the crypto index that concerns YOU so much is only a concern to YOU because YOU are the only one obsessively observing it.

here is the cure.
if YOU stop visiting the site. it stops becoming a concern to YOU. because apart from YOU. i dont see the whole community even giving a crap about some dumb website no one even heard of unless you highlight it.

the crypto index is not a big community barometer / measure. the community dont care about it.
so calm down

^ an article of optimism and hype and over promise

funny part.
"LN can rub shoulders by only being a few seconds slower then apple pay"
research on timings is used in a scenario of 'design to work' AKA perfect conditions test
rather than normal/random situation where scenario is not done in perfect/biased conditions

even the actual LN dev's admit there are flaws in LN

yet more over hype over promise.. (facepalm)

funny thing is people had same opinion as me and others YEARS before craig wright even was a thing..
who's the lapdog..
certainly craig wright didnt create the opinion... (do some research)
ill give you a hint. the real satoshi had th mindset that not everyone needed to be full nodes.
craig wright in 2015+ adopted that narative to try to convince people he was satoshi.

separate thing.
i have been thinking of bitcoin as a decentralised diverse network where not everyone needed to be a full node, before 2015


but yea you try your social drama games.. of distracting the narrative...
but try going to a forum about eastenders and coronation street as thats where social drama should reside

^
seriously.. you learned nothing..

pools just consolidate transactions into blocks..
its then for the nodes to accept those blocks (ultimately BLOCKSTREAMS fibre network AKA CORE roadmap/core dev invention) that decide what passes and what gets rejected(learn the network topology). so if the network had a fe formulae that was set as a rule. then pools would need to follow.

pools dont and wont write a node and publicly release it.. (REKT campaign of social drama by core would avoid that happening)
so knowing the CODE is centralised by core and has been. it would have to be core devs that write in a fee priority formulae.

but hey mr flip flop. wheres your
"devs dont need permission" if your now pretending devs cant change rules as they see fit
"compatibility" of nodes means core can do things without needing a vote
"i agree with cores tactic in august 2017" of the network push off

for months and month the only social debate was not that core control rule changes, but that you love their control and i detest their control.
and now you gone and went full flip flop to even pretend core are not even code creators and just chimney sweepers that do nothing for bitcoin (facepalm)

seriously sort your flip flips out

yep. correct
having 100,000 nodes are decentralised
funniliy the EXCUSES to say everyone(millions/billions) NEEDS to be a full node. so lets stifle bitcoin and deburden bitcoin of utility to push people into LN..
but then those with the stifle/deburden bitcoin mindset... then strangely are OK with factory servers/watchtower masternodes.. and then millions of users that are just autopilot slaves using litephone apps where their funds are locked with a factory/watchtower aswell as a counterparty

the hypocrisy is soo ludicrous the only end agenda for having that hypocrisy would be the LN lovers hope to be the hubs/watchtowers/factories getting rich

to preempt and answer the usual echo chamber crew of LN lovers rebuttles

1. initial blocksync time - can be solved with just grabbing a few UTXO set info of a users wallet to get an initial 'unverified' final balance. thus users are not twiddling thumbs(same method SPV/Bloom works..) but still including the full blocksync where the blocksync is then less of a time sensitive priority

2. initial blocksync bandwidth. - users dont need to be connected to 200 nodes  so just connect to 1-2 nodes and wait.
(point one) solves the twiddling thumbs waiting for utility issue. so downloading the blockchain is not a waiting dilemma but a background afterthought.

3. initial blockchain data. hard drives of 4 terrabyte are no problem. we are not stuck at millennium technology afterall
(same argument as games consoles and users wanting to play latest games apply. if you want to run it. expect to upgrade hardware more than once every 2 decades)

4. linear/quadratic sig validation.. reduce the sigops limit prevents a problem. no one needs thousands of sigops anyway

5. peer-to peer / cash/ money is a one user to one user analogy so the whole pushing for group transactions just bloat transaction sizes thus limit numbers of users who want independence away from group held custodial models. so get back to simple lean transactions

6. remove the wishy washy witness scale factor code that still under utilises blockdata limits

7. add a fee priority formulae that actually is beneficial to all. punishing just the spammers. but also allowing efficient infrequent transactors with a fee that differs from the spammers. but still effectively gives pools something. without having to stifle bitcoin utility and deburden the network(which definitely would kill miners fees)

all points above have nothing to do with increasing the blocksize but would most definitely get bitcoin passed the 600k tx a day threshold yet to be achieved.

and then
8. incremental (not massive gigabyte foolish nonsense)... INCREMENTAL growth like we had between 2010-2015

instead of a user having to gain a bitcoin address from a user via a website, a forum, a chat, a business card or a display at a merchant and having to enter it in at GUI level via copy/paste/qr scanning

a user could be connected to a services IP address..
the user sends a message to the IP address requesting a public key.. and the IP address (Service) gives back a bitcoin address.
the user then makes a transaction using that given address..

in short it was just a different way of getting an address that didnt rely on copy/paste. QR code scanning. manually at GUI level. but instead direct IP contact with a service the user wanted to give funds to, to get a public key without GUI manual methods

it was never about making a transaction where the recipient output was an IP address.
just a way to obtain a valid public key from a recipient via direct communication as oppose to GUI level copy/paste/QR code scanning

once the transaction is made. it still needs to then be relayed to pools and confirmed.
again its nothing about the output destination of a transaction being an IP address.
again its nothing about avoiding pools to get confirmed funds.

its just a different way to obtain a proper public key, but without using the GUI/manual way

1. pools cant change the rules.(separate debate)
2. pools can IGNORE features that are not ruled(separate debate)
3. but ultimately it was the core devs that REMOVE or add code

EG pools still ran CODE that included the fee priority. they just ignored it.  they didnt release a node to the public that didnt include the fee priority.
pools did not release a node to the public.

it was the core devs that did.
so while pools were ignoring the fee priority, users were still getting messages about fee priority issues. until CORE removed it

ultimately though a new better fee mechanism can solve the issues you have of:
thinking blocks need to be stifled just to get people to pay
thinking pools wont get paid if blocks were large and demand was low

knowing the math that 1mb baseblock 2mb baseblock 4mb baseblock is not a harm to decentralisation..
knowing the math that 1mb, 2mb,4mb base block is no harm to miners
knowing the math that fee's are not essential for years/decades
knowing a fee priority formulae can be implemented to solve the previous 2 things when pools need fee's.
there is no reason to keep blocksizes low under the ruse of "helping pools"

craig appeared public in 2015.. i been here since 2012
chicken.. egg..

what you dont realise is craig is not as smart as he makes out to be. so pretending craig influences people is a big laugh..

also. my opinion is mine. made from many sources human, code, running scenarios... basically research.. u might wanna try it as your echo's are echo's heard many times before by a known group.
but nice try playing the echo game against me.. shame it didnt work due to lack of proper research

so yea ill still yawn and facepalm you. have a nice day
P.S ive never been into the altcoin drama. my mindset is on diversity WITHIN BITCOIN. but you continue highlighting altcoin and social drama stuff

but maybe stick to eastenders next time

again. no protocol changes are needed.
the issue is that exchanges use "hotwallets". meaning they store private keys on the very same server as the exchange front-end. thus if a hacker can get to the server he can get to the keys.

easy solution is that exchanges stop using hotwallets
next instead of usernames and passwords. users can register a public key on the exchange. and then to login AND to withdraw they simply sign a message the exchange requests to prove identity.
EG: 'sign a message using 13xamP734ddr355 with the message:
deisiksayzletzmein110219

user signs the message using their key and pastes it to the server
this public signature sits on a database on the server front end. and separately a remote server just sniffs the database and sees the withdraw request and see's that the signature matches the users registered public key and then its the remote(secret) system that then processes actual withdrawals. thus no passwords, no private keys are ever saved on the exchange server

that way a hacker cant just grab a private key, because there are none. and cannot log in, because they dont have access to sign a message to prove ID.

i find it absolutely astonishing that in a bitcoin world people are not using the benefits of signatures as proof of ID

long story short
he doesnt write bitcoin code
in 2013+ he pretended to own bitcoin of pre 2012 and make a false name for himself by pretending to own coins of bitcoins inventor(due to certain addresses being well known(part of his ploy/plot))

he does not own the coins and just grabbed publicly available data, which anyone has access to, to fake a 'trustfund' to then use the trust fund as collateral to scam many businesses including the australian government.
the aussy government tried chasing him with civil court actions so he fled australia
he is now just trying to grab fresh money from many places to hope to repay old money (run a ponzi) so now he is geting deeper into trouble

he is now trying social drama techniques to continue false faming himself. and hopes the fame would be the proof of ownership without having to prove ownership. and hope he can dig himself out of his hole using social drama, although he is just digging his hole deeper

in short he is not a bitcoin coder, not a bitcoiner, and not a bitcoin influencer.
no point talking more about him as he has nothing really relating him to bitcoin but scams. thus lets not give him more attention. let his name die out and let his faked fame evaporate

^ more insults.. but lack of research

typical.
pressuring bitcoin to remain low utility. and promoting other networks as the utility gate way.. is not promoting utility growth/scaling OF BITCOIN

emphasis OF BITCOIN (research "what is bitcoin")

but utility growth off another networks promissory note (counterparty signed 12 decimal tokens that are only acceptable during waking hours, and not confirmed by a blockchain nor validated by a community)

maybe you finally one day will do research on factories and watchtowers and update your understanding of LN's direction(thunderdome)
but hey if diversity of nodes and bitcoin scaling makes me a zealot. then your devotion to core and commercial services makes you a conservative(UK politics)

problem is. im just sounding off my opinions.. which you dont like.
its you that keeps thinking im insighting rebellion.
if i was a zealot i would be making code and insighting rebellion..

you have got so emotional about just my opinion. that you have tried (and failed) to demand i make code.. purely just so that you can then scream how im insighting rebellion by making code, which you demand

i think you keep missing the point. even though i even made my point in my footnote to remind the likes of you.
hense knowing im just sounding my opinion and not insighting rebellion. you can simply hit the ignore button if you dont like what you read.
this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. so yea i will continue to DISCUSS. i have never had any aims to insight rebellion. i have just had strong opinions that oppose a certain narrative that is at play

but atleast before just returning to your echo chamber to gather more insults to throw. .. try to update your research and stop with the lazy "wait and see" method.
if you actually cared for bitcoin. you would be more desiring to care/research and understand bitcoins purpose. and want to think about things before things happen. rather then "let them play out"

but hey. i expect more insults. so if your initial reaction is an insult. how about try hitting the ignore button instead.

if you want arbitrary data on the blockchain. then never dare enter a debate about bitcoins blockchain is too big.
if you want arbitrary data on the blockchain. then use a blockchain thats not aimed to be just peer-to-peer cash

those that do argue that blockchain is too big and that other networks are needed to take the burden off the network.. but then go on and say that adding arbitrary data is ok.. are just flip flopping

they need to go back to basics and research the whole point of bitcoin. learn its usecase and then stick to the single narrative of that usecase. rather than promoting other features unrelated to the use case and then promoting other networks to provide the usecase, to then make bitcoin not utilised for its usecase and instead promoted as something different

"LN can create great strides in scaling..."...scaling what.
promissory notes that are not guaranteed to end in confirmed bitcoin value for the intended recipient


people vaulting up value into counterparty locks and then using a network thats got nothing to do with blockchains. doesnt allow payment while people are offline. requires intermediaries to be funded and online to hot potato(route) payments.
and doesnt guatantee a confirmed bitcoin confirmation at the end of it....

again. if you think bitcoin doesnt piss you off then bitcoin would be the strides for scaling network you would want innovating. but you by your own admission thinking bitcoin cant scale by needing LN as the 'great stride' means you are saying your not happy with bitcoins lack of 'great strides'

again for you to desire LN means you think bitcoin cant do it.
if you scrape away the top thin crust of your desire and dig deeper. and truly question yourself. you come up with that answer.

in short if you didnt think bitcoin was broke/limited function. then you wouldnt think LN was needed as bitcoin would provide your needs

doomad..
seriously
all i see is ur insults

and then ur final summary. of:
"And why don't you just wait to find out?"
is basically  let it play out let bitcoin centralise let it get expensive

lol, again
"And why don't you just wait to find out?"

is like theres a tsunami warning that can wipe out a town....
doomad. let it play out and see what happens

typical UK conservative mindset.

as for me not listening. your the one that has one mindset.
i travel the world and speak to many people i get a DIVERSE(you'll need a dictionary as its new word to you) understanding. i do my research. yes my opinions are strong. and yea i dont just run off and bite my lip as soon as the echo chambers chime in to yammer about their love and desire to de-burden bitcoins network of utility to hand it off to other commercial networks.

my mindset is LN is a niche service and a separate network for a few people that need it.
but you and your echos endlessly think LN is a bitcoin solution. and then you flip flop.. all for your ultimate goal of wanting everyone to just use LN and then realise the thunderdome they entered, purely because you hope ull be one of the get rich quick LN hubs that just want a repeat of the whole 18th-21st century banking.. while ignoring the whole point of bitcoin

squatter what you are quoting about what miners removed was not the fee priority formulae. but a dedicated x% of blockspace for zero fee users that 'aged out' of the fee formulae.. in essense if you havnt spent your funds for x confirms then your transaction doesnt need to pay fee's because it wont be calculatable by the fee formulae. plus it makes pools not get anything.
what miners did had nothing to do with the formulae itself.
pools cant change bitcoin rules. only devs can when devs make node upgrade options. so it was the devs that removed the fee formulae
....
however a better more effective fee formulae that does give pools fee's but does it fairly where spammers get punished more. helps everyone.

a system of stifling bitcoins blocksize and utility helps no one. and once users are over burdened by the bitcoin networks fee's due to the stifled/stagnancy of no onchain scaling.. and instead use LN to remove themselves from that burden and stay within LN using factories.. what would be left on the network to pay the pools.... nothing.
pools would then need to find new streams of revenue..
and guess what. if they are not getting paid to solve blocks and users are not putting transactions into blocks. pools will just stop mining "empty blocks". thus stalling out the bitcoin network. again helping no one.

services would just use factories to redeploy channel funds withot touching the bitcoin network. after all who would want to pay the inevitable $2-$50 per tx if a factory on LN would do it for pennies.
thus going back to the whole old age banking system that dont use blockchains.

again think about the whole point of bitcoins. the whole revolutionary uniqueness of blockchains
..
i digress
who would want to exit LN to the bitcoin network if it cost $2-$50 to do so, yet things like litecoin could be an exit far cheaper for those wanting to get back to a blockchain of sole control of funds(sovereignty)

seems people are not looking at the whole economic gameplay. and just thinking that somehow if they promote LN hard enough some how they will get rich quick by being an LN hub..
but as logic and running scenarios will show. not everyone will. and those that will would be the commercial services not average joe..

but hey you keep pushing how bitcoin network needs to remain crippled just to pay some company big money.

ever thought of actually having a fee mechanism
a fee priority formulae like what was available for several years before core removed it. but a better one that actually helps users and actually promotes fair usage and also makes a notible difference between those that wont benefit from LN and those that would.. rather than the treat spammers and ethical users with the same high fee rate purely to encourage pushing people off the network, which inevitably simply pushes the fee rate up more and utility/desires of bitcoin down

in the UK we are seeing hospitals reduce the amount of beds from 300k to 130k just to push 2 false agenda's
1. that 'immigration' is causing a backlog of hospital waiting times.
2. that people should move away from using the national health service and instead pay for a commercial private hospital to avoid waiting times.

the reality is that less people use a national health service than before and the national health service is left to be stifled stagnant and die out. all purely because those that love to be "conservative" prefer commercial services over a system thats open and barrierless for entry.

there is nothing stopping the system going back to 300k beds and then expending at a 5% bed count increase per year. but nah.. 'conservatives' dont like open borderless systems. they want capitalist commercialised systems

need you forget the whole point of bitcoin vs fiat.

firstly no one HAS TO deposit gold into a bank vault... but if bank notes promote and encourage mass participation of gold why be angry at bank notes. its nonsensical........ is pretty much what your saying right?

a smart contract is just a buzzword for a vault that you yourself do not solely control.
in essense. IF you DID lock up bitcoin into a vault with only yourself. you are not creating a channel. you are just timing yourself and only yourself out of being able to do anything with your funds on the bitcoin network
LN users wont accept such a single control lock. as they have no control to prevent you from just running off and never paying them whats owed later.

multisig is about multiple parties being involved. channels are multisig (multi/counterparty)
maybe instead of thinking what i say is about 'is franky right or wrong' but a point at which you should really look beyond the glossy hype of the promotion material and actually look at LN properly..
even LN devs will admit the flaws and issues with LN

but hey. if you think LN and bitcoin are the same thing.. just ask yourself the 'day one' question of "what is bitcoin" and then compare that answer to "what is LN"

heres an example
1. how many decimals does a bitcoin payment have []8      []12
2. can you pay bitcoiners when the recipient is offline []yes      []no
3. are bitcoin payments validated and confirmed by the community []yes    []no
4. do you need to pre-plan spending habits and lock funds []yes    []no
5. do you then need to search for routes that are online and funded to pass your payment []yes  []no

give your answer for bitcoin.. then ask yourself again for LN
then finally ask
was LN designed to be bitcoin compatible and a feature of bitcoin.. OR.. was bitcoin altered to include a new tx format to be a gateway to LN
.. then you will learn the difference


with all that said. LN not visioned as a "bitcoin solution" (because its not).. but envisioned as a commercial side service network. has a niche. but even to fulfill that niche the bitcoin network still needs to scale.
for instance knowing that bitcoin can only handle 600k lean legacy transactions daily. or ~400k LN gateway transactions.
knowing people to have a reliable LN experience will need 4-6 channels(gateway transactions)
thats only letting in 80k-100k users a day open LN channels.
which with people needing at some point to close them channels. and also people only funding and pre-planning spending habit for a couple weeks(average utility).
means every fortnight 80k-100k are using 2 days of bitcoin blockchain data(open and close). thus mathematically 2 days per fortnight = 700k users per fortnight spending habits.
oh i must stipulate these numbers are only if the bitcoin blockchain was utilised only for LN gateway transactions. because if normal bitcoiners were also doing normal bitcoin transactions inblocks. then thats less LN gateway transactions = less LN users

so, yea dont snap at me for going beyond the promotional material. instead try to yourself look beyond the over promise/over hype sponsorship stuff and look at LN fully an indepth.

LN is not a bitcoin thing.
LN is a separate network for multiple coins. the onyl reason the words bitcoin and LN are currently inter-twined is purely for promotion and sponsorship stuff..

LN is just a thunderdome to let many coins IOU's(12 decimal payments) enter. and then have some coins soo expensive and so unable to manage millions of transactions a day, that people wont want to exit back out to those coins.
thunderdome 2 may enter one may leave..

its the old banking addage of gold is too heavy and costly to be a currency, so lock ur gold up with a counterparty and have them give you a promissory note(19th century banking promotion).. and if you want to convert the promissory note to coins, you may find taking silver or copper a better exit method.

LN does not scale bitcoin. it actually takes bitcoiners off the bitcoin network "to reduce the burden" (=reduce bitcoin utility)