Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case.
So why dont you explain to me what makes it a Kludge? Also, I tried not insult you so please try and not to insult me. I never said segwit itself was a kludge. (its inelegant at best) If you read back to my original post, I asked you about how making segwit SF-able was a kludge. Maybe answer that question. segwit should be a HF. Making it a SF is political and destroys most of their credibility. |
|
|
|
What do you think are the other developers since only 1 (paid) is working on LN? Another case of personal incredulity.
No, they have drafted in another US Gov/Google "consultant" who is changing the way LN works to make it easier for survellance security via USG-TOR (I enjoyed that.  )ps - personal incredulity? what now?  |
|
|
|
The expected benefit for standard transactions is about 1.7mb, best case is 4mb. its 2mb for 2-of-2 multisig.
"kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends. What makes it a kludge? Gavin said so? It cleans up the structure and fixes many problems like malleability.
"How does that effect capacity now or 'down the line'? It does no such thing."
Payment channels and lightning network can not work properly without malleability fixed. Segwit does that, hard fork offers 0.
Payment channels and lightning network will enable scaling orders of magnitude bigger then measly chaotic hardfork increase by 1mb.
The core scaling road map is more then good enough. Gavin is causing disruption and chaos because of his ego, once we ignore him price will increase and everybody will be happy.
You know less about Bitcoin than you do about correctly quoting comments... You are just shitposting now. Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case. I mean this : "kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends is about as much quality as you can muster. Thankfully, you will be forked off to your AXACoin soon enough. |
|
|
|
Segwit gives the same capacity increase as your hard-fork,
No it does not. 1.3x to 1.7x in absolute best case. How does it do this? By creating a completely new, arbitrary blockchain. Thats so cool, isn't it? if thats not a capacity solution that how is hard fork capacity solution?
HF bumps capacity to 2Mb, Were you not aware of that? Its much better tho as its a soft-fork and gives many other improvements.
This is complete bullshit. Its only a SF because of a kludge - which you wont even talk about. Segwit is much bettter as a HF Among them it fixes malleability which is needed for much better capacity increases down the line.
How does that effect capacity now or 'down the line'? It does no such thing. You are throwing anything into your argument now. The hard-fork offers nothing in that department.
It does not need to. We are not trying to change bitcoin so we can sell it to the banking industry as a private blockchain. All the 'fixes' you are putting in are at the behest of AXA and the other institutional investors that have bought bitcoin from blockstream. |
|
|
|
Why does anybody push this crazy chaotic, contencious (75% 28 days) hard-fork when we have a far superior solution in segwit.
Could everybody please chill and not belive the FUD about capacity cliff. Bitcoin doing as good as ever.
Because, just maybe, they dont share your blind faith? Blind faith in what, Gavin? You think Segwit wont be implemented? Its already running on testnet and wallet developers are working with core devs to integrate. Most wallet devs said its relatively simple. That statement is just waffle. Capacity and segwit are 2 different issues. Are you saying segwit is a capacity solution? I'm sure that will be news to its developers as they wrote it to solve a very different problem set. Or are you suggesting that it is a capacity solution by virtue of its radical reformatting of block structure, and that that is in some way less risky than the 2Mb bump? How do you feel about the segwit kludge of pushing its commitment into the coinbase tx? You ok with that design approach? What was the motivation for it? Expediency, efficiency or just so that they would not have to sell segwit as an evil HF? |
|
|
|
because they know if people move over to "liquid" then the demand for bitcoin would die. Liquid is just another alt. And unlike most alts, it is a fucking piece of shit alt that won't work. And they like to say that Bip101 is an alt. Hahahahahaha Ah, you missed the greatest nugget of comedy gold with Liquid - it relies on Federated servers.. 'Federated' as in 'trusted'. And they claim that a 2Mb bump will lead to centralization? Irony, much? Can they really think so little of Bitcoin users that they can pass bullshit like this and not expect it to be challenged? |
|
|
|
This is strange answer coming from a bitcointalk.org staff member. But you are the same person that said Satoshi's vision is irrelevant? Funny how well now I can remember you and your ways.
Should I call you 'names' for quoting me out of context; albeit you'd come crying with "ad hominem"? It is obvious why you are doing this though and you intelligence is "astounding". Look at all those logical fallacies. Strange indeed... the same people that cry most loudly against 'contentious hard forks' are the ones that seem to be against implementing a simple 2MB increase right now that would make the forking threat disappear.
It is not strange; you guys are making yourself obvious. Let me try this one more time: What are the benefits of 2 MB blocks and what are the benefits of segwit if we exclude the increase in TPS? If your answer to the first question is nothing (it should be, you can't change this fact), then we have a clear winner. Time to move on.
The answer is a clear and indicative no. You can try to deny it, you can try to go around it, you can try to lie about it, but it won't change it. Aside from the increase in TPS that both proposals bring to the table, 2 MB block size brings nothing.
Face the facts. With segwit and the 'forkers' we have a nice case of personal incredulity.
Really...is that so? Then what is it a Monarchy or Totalitarianism? It could function better depending on who's leading, albeit it is neither one of those. Segwit?
When I joined bitcoin there was and still is no segwit, nor am I interested in reversible transactions with a possible and yet unknown risk of backdoor attacks.
This makes no sense. what exactly about Blockstream is it -- specifically -- that has made people turn so vociferously on Core devs that have tirelessly worked for years to make bitcoin what it is?
'Forkers' are mad that their idea is irrational, and thus Blockstream must be evil and blocking consensus. Is it April already? I must have overslept.
Good luck gaining consensus (albeit 75% isn't consensus) for the HF before April. I'll push veto myself. Lauda, do you ever get tired of fighting with everyone? Do you ever consider - for even a second - that you may not be 100% correct in your views? I'll push veto myself You do that Lauda. You veto all you like while Bitcoin is sold out to the interests of Bankers over the users themselves. The very bankers it was conceived to circumvent. You are just a cheap sell out. |
|
|
|
Why does anybody push this crazy chaotic, contencious (75% 28 days) hard-fork when we have a far superior solution in segwit.
Could everybody please chill and not belive the FUD about capacity cliff. Bitcoin doing as good as ever.
Because, just maybe, they dont share your blind faith? |
|
|
|
If you think the world has enough Bitcoin users as things stand today, you have a point. If you think that use of Bitcoin growing by a factor of more than several dozen percent is desirable, then your point is ridiculous.
What makes you believe that users would feel the urgent need to spend their btc in dust amounts for b/s on a daily basis? And even if they did, why would that be so good? To look cool waiting half an hour to pay a frappuccino? And at what cost? For the umpteenth time - the issue is NOT dust transactions. The issue is that, with max block size capped at 1MB, the system is simply incapable of handling more than ~350,000 transactions a day - no matter the value of those transactions. Quit changing the topic. Quit putting words in my mouth. Such is dishonest. Dust is what they are aiming for by their own admission - the block chain is to become an immutable ledger as opposed to a record of peer-to--peer cash transactions You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger (ie, it's tech for hire).
|
|
|
|
... let the DDOSing begin now that techignorati who use binaries because they can't build from source are wandering stupidly into the badlands. tally-ho
And that pretty much sums up your scumbag attitude. I bet you have giftcards for sale too, paid for by stolen credit cards. You are a real asset to the core-devs, a like minded fellow traveler. |
|
|
|
"The lines cross and omg! catastrophe happens" is the sophisticated wrapper around the bullshit argument "nobody goes there any more because it is too popular".
 |
|
|
|
But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin
This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why? Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems. Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem. Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap. Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users. The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they? CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business. Actually, a lot of us have been screaming for added privacy for a long time, due to taint analysis/blacklisting by big businesses. Why would confidental transactions appeal to big businesses? If that were true, why have do companies like Bitpay, Coinbase and Circle blacklist customers/vendors based on the source of their bitcoins? It seems to me that confidential transactions would hamper any efforts by the big corporations that are currently trying to monetize bitcoin transactions to comply with certain regulations, like the Bank Secrecy Act. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190707.0;allCore's roadmap puts a great deal of emphasis on decentralization (as opposed to anything offered by the Classic team). Could you explain how it appeals to Big Business? Or are we just making claims based on zero evidence, as I suspect? Oh for christs sake, you people are hopeless. CT only obfuscates the amounts and nature of the transaction. It does fuck all to hide who you are, other than the usual tricks already in bitcoin and the remaining whiff of pseudonymity left after normal data mining of the blockchain. Banks dont care about being anonymous, just that the details of the tx remain confidential. If CT truly hid you, how long do you think it would last up against AML/KYC? I mean seriously, answer that. This is just another stupid attack on the few things left in bitcoin that gives it any little bit of utility. If you want to buy cp or drugs and not get caught, find some other way. How does it appeal to Big Business? $76m not enough reasons for you? |
|
|
|
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.htmlWe see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer. Wat?? Seems legit. |
|
|
|
But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin
This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why? Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems. Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem. Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap. Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users. The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they? CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business.  |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER, sure it's all good. Was asking croTek4 why he quoted that line out of context, seems like he's implying something.
There's a lot of FUD swirling about Blockstream in this thread. I don't see any real conflicts of interest between their business model and Bitcoin's principles. They're under the spotlight when it comes to such things. If there were any real problems, we'd know.
Out of context? Seriously? Try reading the thread ( protip: start at the title) again and then come back to us. Here is Manish Agarwal's full quote: ”We believe that the blockchain technology has the potential to dramatically reshape the financial services landscape. The public blockchain is a key part of that, in my view. We are not that interested in the actual bitcoin as a currency, but the tech is the key.”Quoting only a part of someone's statements, particularly in a way which twists their intended meaning, is called quoting out of context. Pro-tip: stay calm and think things through when replying to people. If you let emotion cloud your reason, your responses may appear foolish. AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users. What is there to be upset about? If you take off your Classic goggles for one minute, you'll see that this is a very promising development for Bitcoin! How does the rest of the quote change anything? He is still saying that they dont want bitcoin the currency, just the ledger mechanism. Thats the point we are making - bitcoin is effectively being asset stripped in front of our eyes. The diminution of bitcoin from a real life currency that you can buy real things with to being little more than a pow stamp on a transaction will have enormous impact on the community - but very few realise the true implications of this. I fail to see how you can honestly believe that this is a positive development for bitcoin and those who have invested both time and money in its evolution as a peer to peer cash system. And dont believe for one minute that they will allow their money to be used "to benefit all users" - it will only benefit them. Most of the proposed changes to bitcoin have little to do with general utility, and everything to do with making it attractive to corporate users. |
|
|
|
Satoshi never used IRC, and he rarely explained his motivations for anything. In this case, he kept the change secret and told people who discovered it to keep it quiet until it was over with so that controversy or attackers wouldn’t cause havok with the ongoing rule change…
….I think that he was just trying to solve an obvious denial-of-service attack vector. He wasn’t thinking about the future of the network very much except to acknowledge that the limit could be raised if necessary. The network clearly couldn’t support larger blocks at that time, and nowadays we know that the software wasn’t even capable of handling 1 MB blocks properly. Satoshi once told me, “I think most P2P networks, and websites for that matter, are vulnerable to an endless number of DoS attacks. The best we can realistically do is limit the worst cases.” I think he viewed the 1 MB limit as just blocking yet another serious DoS attack….
…Satoshi is gone now, so it’ll be “the developers” who set the larger limit. But it has been determined by the majority of the Bitcoin Core developers (and the majority of Bitcoin experts in general) that the network cannot actually safely handle significantly larger blocks, so it won’t be done right now. And the economy has the final say, of course, not the developers.
Its a moot point really. We dont need bitcoins anyway...
You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger (ie, it's tech for hire).
|
|
|
|
You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain;
you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger (ie, it's tech for hire).
I think this is the most revealing statement you have ever made. I'm just quoting it now for my own records, but I will come back to it. For now, I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out just what that statement means, and how it impacts the value of their bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Many people are more interested in bitcoin-the-blockchain-technology than Bitcoin-the-first-crypto-currency.
I'm sorry, but I have no way of interpreting that statement that doesn't involve you being an idiot. There is no such thing as bitcoin-the-blockchain. The fact that you can even begin to conceive that this may be a thing makes me very certain that you are shit out of arguments in this debate. Blockchain - anyone can create: can use it to support currency, dns, registries, etc. Bitcoin - is a digital currency that employs blockchain rules. Trying to paint bitcoin as some tech-for-hire is a new low - even for you. Bitcoin's blockchain exists. You may download it here. You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger (ie, it's tech for hire). Soon we will have Layer 2 things built on the blockchain's Layer 1, like sidechains and payment channels, which abstract, standardize, and (hopefully) commodify/commercialize/professionalize those processes. Accounting firms like PwC are very excited to use bitcoin-the-blockchain's technology and infrastructure to do their jobs better, but crypto-currency speculation is beyond their remit. You really are adorable. You have conned $76m from those poor trusting, hard working VC's and investment types for something they could have downloaded for free via the link you posted? Nice work! So whats in the blockchain that they are interested in? Isn't it just full of transactions of bitcoins? ( that they are not interested in) Come on, that was a very weak effort. You will need to invent a better story about your bitcoin-the-blockchain concept.... |
|
|
|
ok icebreaker we get it. your not interested in bitcoin or blockchain. your only interested in defending blockstream.
kind of funny, im guessing they promised you that monero would be one of the sidechains?
that way you can pretend your not getting a payday, but secretly are when monero is pegged 1for1 with bitcoin
You couldhave a point there - Ive updated the AXA statement with this in mind: Blockstream provides companies with the most mature, well tested, and secure blockchain technology in production – the blockchain original protocol extended via various shitcoins like monero – along with one of the most experienced teams in the industry and a neo-nazi troll. Holy shit, they have hit the motherlode....  |
|
|
|
Many people are more interested in bitcoin-the-blockchain-technology than Bitcoin-the-first-crypto-currency.
I'm sorry, but I have no way of interpreting that statement that doesn't involve you being an idiot. There is no such thing as bitcoin-the-blockchain. The fact that you can even begin to conceive that this may be a thing makes me very certain that you are shit out of arguments in this debate. Blockchain - anyone can create: can use it to support currency, dns, registries, etc. Bitcoin - is a digital currency that employs blockchain rules. Trying to paint bitcoin as some tech-for-hire is a new low - even for you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
