blockstream removed many onchain fee control mechanisms..
- removed priority formulae
- removed reactive fee estimation (so fee's dont instantly drop in low demand)
- added average fee (so fee's stay up even in low demand)

funny how coders remove code rules and instead just scream "just pay more"

all so onchain fee's are now ~$0.80(160sat/b on average tx of 400byte) instead of $0.04(average fee a year+ ago)
so that when they control the LN DNS seed to grab fee's they can charge anything from 0.01-0.75(per route through them) and people will still think its "cheaper" than normal onchan transactions

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 1m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 2m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 10m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 20m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months

or you just cant accept that blockstream dev's have flaws, and are human.. rather than gods

asic boost existed before segwit

if you think asics are attacking blockstream then time travel must be possible.

yet, using logic
gmax one month ago realised his 'going soft' approach was not as compatible with the network as he thought. but instead of re-coding segwit to fit around the network he wants his flock to point fingers at the pools and blame them for why segwit will have issues being accepted.

funny part is, gmax and his flock actually proposed to 'go soft' purely to avoid users consensus. as a way to escape anyone sayin no.. but now gmax has found the code for going soft is his own downfall

if only gmax actually done a proper 1merkle full node+pool consensus and using that oppertunity to include dynamics aswell.. alot of time, delay and debate could have been avoided

lol
all nodes that are ok with dynamics and REAL mainblock growth have the code there already. (my node has variable limit right now. i can change it at runtime and not need to download anything later)

no need to download a new implementation later for those that are already dynamic ready.. no need to play around with resyncing no need to change the network topology no need to get people to move to different keypairs.

its a simple. if there is a safe majority to not cause much fuss of orphans or node drop off.. pools just make bigger blocks. right at the point its safe to.

yet those wanting segwit WILL need to download something AFTER activation, ven if they have v0.14 they will still need to be spoonfed another version if segwit activates

blockstream made many foolish statements
"its ok sheep you dont need to upgrade, be happy to live in the cesspit"
"its ok everything is compatible if you accept the fact you become reliant on a tier network"
"when activated everything is fixed and utopia for everyone"

look deeper down the rabbit hole about the new drama of segwit getting into litecoin
names to look out for
charlie lee - litecoin master.. employed by coinbase
bobby lee BTCC pool (charlies brother)

now check out
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
blockstream
BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coinbase

even another drama event of bcoin made by purse..
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse

all the segwit news buzz
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coindesk

the 'economic majority in favour of segwit'
http://dcg.co/portfolio they are all under the dcg VC list.

yep blockstream are IN DEBT to a tune of $70m+ and they are really needing segwit to be pushed to get controlling interest in bitcoin so that the debts can be repaid via trading and LN hub fee's (how else do you think blockstream will relay the "loan")

then ask yourself with segwits release in october. BTCC was first to jump on the band wagon without even giving themselves a couple weeks to even review the code. they jumped in full on instantly. and are now pushing the same for litecoin.

and let us not forget the unpaid spell check interns hoping to kiss ass by being blockstream loyal, for the dream of getting a blockstream job.. funny part is they think its a $70m pocket of money ready to hand out. reality is blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70m if they cant get control

and lastly.
if you think that novembr 2017 would be a give up and try somhing different and accept no mean no if not activated by then. pfft.
blockstream will just ignore the pool/user abstaining and just cause another year of delays and doing nothing more then re-pushing segwit as it all the way upto the end of 2018
so dont expect the drama to end this year
http://www.uasf.co/

please note all links and quotes are pulled from the sources of blockstream/DCG. they are not random opinions from unknown reddit script writers or just propaganda wrote by random people

lol i know your cencentration span is only 2 paragraphs. but please try reading more.

here.. even from the docs of your overlord
http://www.uasf.co/

translation. instead of waiting for nodes to upgrade, they just need to signal desire (hence: UASF is just any random node throwing a comment)

again. its about just signalling by any random implementation throwing a comment.

the real end user ability to actually move funds to segwit keys and disarm themselves will come later. weeks/month after 'activation'
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/




by thinking its just core vs BU. shows your lack of understanding of BITCOIN NETWORK

things you dont realise.
many people have a bitcoin-core node but have set the consensus.h much higher than 1mb. they just dont advertise it to avoid DDoS by your clan
many people running bitcoin-core are not actually advocating for segwit.

sgwit is not a yes or no. the activation is meaningless in relation to the "fixes"
the activation just changes who's ontop as a seeder(upstream filter) and who's a leacher(downstream cesspit, not full node) while actually opening up more attack vectors.

the end user 'benefit' / functionality gesture of segwit is about the keypair utility, but even this does not 'fix' things at a whole network level. it only affects those who voluntarily disarm themselves
if you think that the 46m outputs of native keys will all happily be segwit outputs magically without causing issues .. then please run some scenarios

segwit is not really about LN. (its just 'sold' as needed as one of many last ditch plea's to get their way)
anyone at any time can set up a multisig and then have many ways to communicate to another person to agree on who owes who what

ive been doing it for a couple years. even escrows have been doing it for a couple years.

my fear of LN is more about who controls the DNS seed as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.
my fear of LN is more about who controls hubs and how blackmail and CSV(real world chargeback) as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.

yes LN has a place in the bitcoin eco system as a voluntary side service for the niche users that need it (day traders/gamblers/faucets) but should not be treated as the end goal of bitcoin solutions because even LN has limits

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

where as using the implementations that have dynamics actually start allowing blocks over1mb to be built without needing to be spoonfed yet another release download.
where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network

(understand the difference between peer and tier)
 learn the consequences of the tier network, the dilution of full nodes that are not equally syncable to each other, where the downstream cesspit of prunned, stripped, nodes that cant sync and become RELIANT on upstream nodes.
think about it (using the bitcoin network hat, not the blockstream defender hat)

peer networks is where people dont need to move funds to new keypairs and everyone can benefit from real extra space even using native keys and everyone is equal full node.

lauda the activation of segwit itself is meaningless..
if segwit is so 'compatible' then why even need deadlines, threats. bribes ans blackmails.. they could just turn it on right now, right.. because 'its fully compatible' -as they say

but segwit activation does not give the bitcoin network any positives..

what it does do. is for the people who have a segwit node (under100%) who THEN...
wait around for weeks.. and then later download yet another spoon fed implementation just to get the real segwit wallet functionality
and then. of those that download they future release voluntarily move funds to segwit keypairs WEEKS - MONTHS after activation(even lower amount of people).. disarm themselves from performing quadratics, malleation, etc.

but this is where your not comprehending BITCOIN as a whole network.

- does it eradicate malleability (emphasis: for the network).. no
- does it eradicate quadratics (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse (4ktxsigop becomes 16ktxsigops)
- does it ensure all full nodes are full nodes (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse

you live in the dream world of an only blockstream/DCG existance, you can only see the world from the point of view where only blockstream/DCG software is rnning

forget about defending blockstream/DCG,
when you come to this forum.. try real hard to look in the mirror and ask yourself what hat your wearing.. and if the answer is the blockstream/DCG defense cap.. then dont reply to any posts.

stop defending them as kings of the utopian castle. and realise that bitcoin is beyond your kings.

anyway.
back to the question at hand.
would you blame and call ATI an attacker for using openCL if a year after GPU mining started gmax found an issue in gmaxes code that caused gmaxes code to not be as 'compatible' and as he promised

try to learn about bitcoin. because you have subtly omitted you have wasted the last year not learning. but do try to learn about bitcoin beyond a 2 paragraph blockstream/DCG script. and then reply using the cap of bitcoin network understanding

you do realise bitcoin will and should be around for centuries but blockstream/DCG wont be. so vesting your entire mindset around defending blockstream/DCG is a temporary thing that wont last and you will regret it later once their experiment is over and they have moved on to hyperledger

and on same day litecoin tanked



and on same day Vert tanked 20% ltc rose 20%

its just tennis...

and all your doing is looking at th ball (the latest coin that rises) and ignoring the one without the ball (the latest coin that drops) and then scream it rose because segwit.
but when it drops. you will scream the other coin rises "because segwit good."

are you next going to offer a daily report. find which coin rose and scream "its segwit"

temporary price drama is meaningless. especially in the stupidly twisted context you use.

lol
you have no clue.

next you will be telling me that the chinese do infact have a time machine went back and made hardware purely to attack software.

wake up to logic.
hardware came first,
new software came second
new software is not getting the appreciation
new software not active
new software has a flaw

you cant blame old hardware

TL:DR
how can summer 2015 hardware be exploiting autumn 2016 released software

---

secondly blockstream admit the going soft anyone canspend route was a backdoor to avoid node consensus

thirdly
actually you will find it is an anyonecanspend. which is why if segwit activates they have to PREVENT old nodes seeing unconfirmed segwit tx's and also prevent old nodes from mining blocks ontop of segwit,
and why the segwit keypair wallet is not active in any of the 0.13.X 0.14.x
and why even when segwit is activated the segwit keypair wallet wont be available instantly because they need to ensure the old nods are cut off from manipulating unconfirmed tx's by ensuring the network is tiered with segwit at the top.

atleast try to learn the finer details and stop just pushing the utopian 30 second sales pitch

the guys that say its 1000x too expensive.
are the ones with only $1000 to their name wished they bought at $1 so they would later be millionares when they scream for it to be worth 1000x more after buying.

the guys that say bitcoin should be 500,000 are the ones that bought at probably $500 and are screaming for it to be worth $500k to then be millionaires when buying only 2btc.

i have seen this in the past.

many peoples 'future price' valuations are usually linked to what they hold or wished they held. and then calculated to a future profit of $1mill

EG someone screaming bitcoin should be $33k each probably only has 30btc
i dont know where this mindset came from but many people i speak to have this "i wanna be a fiat millionaire" mindset.
not realising by the time they become fiat millionaires. hyper inflation will only by them a loaf of bread with it.

i do laugh at those that only care about a future FIAT value while pretending "banks are bad, governments are bad"

lauda, your showing little to no understanding of bitcoin but high understanding to blockstreams control. i wonder why.

asicboost is no secret. in 2015 it was an efficiency boost. hardware and software was developed.
MONTHS LATER blockstream decided "wait we could implement segwit using the anyonecanspend backdoor exploit" thinking blockstream can have a easy life adding in code without node veto and thinking buying the pools a free lunch gets them segwit by christmas 2016..
so a year after asic hardware is designed. sgwit code is ready for testnet.
but the testnet tests are not thorough enough.
months later segwit gets a public release and starts having a deadline.
so thats a year of coding.. blockstream failed to realise their 2merkle backdoor version wouldnt be compatible with efficient hardware software.
they released the code.. 5 months of having the release blockstream had no clue their backdoor (going soft) would have issues.

then last month gmax hit the wall by realising that all the year and a half of trying to bypass node consensus by going soft would never have worked out right anyway.

so now gmax is having a temper tantrum and blaming pools.

---

please do something before replying to defend blockstream.
clear your mind of blockstream.. relax, take off the defender hat. and wear the logical thinking cap.

---

and imagine this.
its 2011 ATI have this snazzy feature that Geforce doesnt. is called openCL. it gives ATI an advantage.
now imagine 2012 some new bitcoin feature was needed, it was hoped to use some backdoor to implement it to not need full node consensus.
you have done lots of tests using Geforce and ATI non-openCL hardware.
near 2013 you realise your backdoor attempts hit a wall because openCL affects it.
do you
A. tell the world ATI is attacking bitcoin because of openCL
B. be honest and tell the world the node consensus bypass backdoor would never have worked as expected but you only just found the problem
C. do B but then raise your hands and say ok community, lets node consensus a new cleaner recoded version and this time lets include dynamics and other proper fixes.
D. do A and double down threatening ATI and insinuating people should hate ATI with racial rhetoric while you try killing off anyone thats using openCL

yp it does not need 400 contributor votes to add a line of code. it just need the maintainer and a couple main guys to acknowledge it.

i know for sure that the devs dont read every single line of code. because i have seen many cases where the main regular contributors end up asking each other about lines X even afters its in a release candidate.

for instance gmax amended a few of the tx fee things which led to the fee rise happen more easily, but question them about it and they cant remember how or what happened or by who

they just blindly trusted that gmax coded something and let it pass.
hense why i think a few of them are now blaming pools. when it was actually core code caused simply because not everyone knows the whole code, and each person just concentrates on a certain area.

that was march 2016.. before segwit or LN realy gained any traction at code level.. things have moved on from then(obviously)
i know in last 6 months they were thinking of segwit keys being 3. and the LN guys wanting BC: at the front to help them out for their altcoin inter-playability..

in short, by going soft. blockstream nodes need to strip away the segwit witnesses to make the block appear valid to old nodes downstream. so need to completely separate the signature away.. thus needing 2 merkles to keep them linked without being linked..just t be able to cut the witness away..

however if everyone was upgrading by going hard, then there is no need to have to play the strip data down to meet old block game of a tier network, because everyone would be on the same playing field.

so the witness can just be appended to a tx and not need a second merkle thus the base block limit becomes irrelevant and the 4mb weight because the new block limit with no more 1mb (old native node rule)

i thought they were suppose to begin 3.. meaning accounting for the extended LN addressing. it would be BC3 not BC1

the BC part of the address is all because rusty russel wants BC at the front so that address formats for LN can do things like offchain swaps with other altcoins easier, where i feel that litecoin will have LC3 for instance...

---

and yea years ago when i seen Luke want tonal, i facepalmed that

yep
some people use the term 'legacy' which also refers to standard/current/old keys
but legacy is more about inheritance after death..(real world definition... not bitcoin buzzword definition)

i prefer using native (like real word definition: the natives [indians] who existed prior to the invasions of newcomers)

as for the hard vs soft..

a 1 merkle hard is cleaner than a 2 merkle soft. for things like no need for the tier network of upstream filters because all implementations would need to upgrade and thus no need to 'strip' blocksor need of a 2 merkle to allow stripping.
that way the 4mb weight does become the 4mb base. for everyone to take advantage of native or segwit keypair

but the txsigoplimit still needs to be kept down for the sake of native key abusers

fully agree with CK. he beat me to that..
blocking native keys .. i facepalmed when i read that from anonymoustroll420
lol

and if anonymoustroll420 thinks segwit can just 'convert' everyones funds over to segwit with a magic wand.. well another facepalm is needed

its far far easier to just have txsigop limit at sat well under 4000 forever.. none of this txsigops upscaling with blocksize crap that actually makes quadratic spamming worse not better