Is he saying use a legacy address just in case? believe he is directly mentioning segwit bitcoin has always been attacked, in every instance the opposition always with a centralized or distributed solution fake attacks as they actually want to destroy the evidence in the blockchain and yes i believe put your coins in a legacy address He is not mentioning Segwit, your imagination thinks like that. According to your logic all hardware and exchange users will lose their coins when LN goes down. Stop spreading FUD, take a crypto holiday. |
|
|
|
And that is being said by a guy that even if he's not Satoshi himself most people agrees he could perfectly had been. Additional layers are the only way to really scale orders of magnitude from here.
There has never been an IT system or application in the world that has been able to scale *without* secondary and tertiary layers. Even completely centralized ones. Any IT person, systems admin or programmer can easily tell you that. That's why these "single layer crypto" idiots need to rightly fkn off. It's like arguing with a rocket scientist that rockets can be built without a propulsion system. Or that the earth is flat. It's condescension at best, lunacy and trolling at worst. A channel on the Lightning Network can process 500 tps, with 7800 channels means 3.9 million tps. Going from 7 tps to 3.9 million is already a mindblowing increase but.... it is not enough. We need tens if not hundreds of millions tps for Bitcoin in order to scale globally if you consider the enormous potential while keeping the main chain decentralised and secure as possible. On-chain scaling was never an option only those bigblocker idiots dreaming about it ore they are not well informed enough. |
|
|
|
Roger after he saw that Bcash toilet paper   |
|
|
|
The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.
And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well.
This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.
Anyone can spend Segwit coins argument originated from the BU era. Bcash'ers are former BU supporters. Just rehashed old FUD. Unfortunately some people falling straight into that trap. |
|
|
|
For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument. Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day. Several hundred thousand peeps opening/closing LN channels per day seems a bit overkill currently, don't you think? Currently? Yes. But I thought LN was supposed to be a scalability solution. And eliminate the benefit of bigger blocks. LN is in BETA and the developers will make it scale into the millions, just give them time to develop it. Opening/closing a channel will be for most people a one time job. Develepors are not against a block size increase, we'll have one later on but don't expect giga blocks. My guess is to 2mb ore 4 mb and combine it with Segwit. This whole scaling debat was only about taking control, i'm utterly shocked how people follow PR-guy Roger Ver without any knowledge about programming instead following people who KNOWS how to develop Bitcoin. The only thing people needs to do is listen to developers and not to some random guy on the internet. |
|
|
|
I'll give it a shot.
No need to be concerned, non issue among developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LN loves Segwit because one of the features is the malleability fix Segwit provides. So Bitcoin can finally scale properly. What Satoshi thinks about LN;  |
|
|
|
Zugdanoff: they panic sold, reverse the Facebook ad ban.  |
|
|
|
Price follows hashrate/difficulty? Seems like it. So the next bull run will take it roughly to $30k-$50k.  |
|
|
|
When we attacked the Bitcoin LN we failed across the board except for the massive nodes that crashed however they were quickly fixed and running again. This was a win-win for Bitcoin LN; only time can tell how Bitcoin Cash will withstand the assault. I'm convinced their "stress tests" caused my node to crash a couple times, and caused my pipe some grief a little while back. Got some good debug logs out of it though, and the LN folks are very very fast to fix bugs/issues upon submitting them. I think one of my crash reports was resolved and checked in within 8 hours of the report, once, for example. Some really intelligent and highly-motivated people working on Lightning. They released 3 Lightning implementations (Eclair, lnd and c-lightning) today with new features and improvements  https://blockstream.com/2018/06/25/c-lightning-06.html |
|
|
|
The guys behind the (failed) attack on Bitcoin and LN will do the same 'stress testing' on Bcash. We believe we have already perfected our approach and our studies are conclusive; LevelDB cannot sustain our complex blocks and Bitcoin Cash is 85% centralized to only a few data-centers and miners. If Bitcoin Cash were 15% centralized then our efforts would fail except for the LevelDB weaknesses; our confidence as always is high. When we attacked the Bitcoin LN we failed across the board except for the massive nodes that crashed however they were quickly fixed and running again. This was a win-win for Bitcoin LN; only time can tell how Bitcoin Cash will withstand the assault. https://medium.com/@coop__soup/an-attack-on-bcash-oh-no-dcd199b95987https://pastebin.com/bJjGvUTu |
|
|
|
People read about fungibility in Wikipedia and about segwit on bcash blogs and take these crazy conclusions.
People to lazy to read books or good sources of information such as GitHub ... As a result, bad investments, such as bcash.
Yeah, some people here needs to do that ore they need to follow them on Twitter. Valuable information. More fungibility will be added to Bitcoin with projects like; LN, MAST, Schnorr signature aggregation, MimbleWimble, TumbleBit. And Segwit opens the door to those projects, it will not only add more fungibility but also lower fee's, privacy, scalability and security. |
|
|
|
Who here is NOT going to sell me their Lambo if I pay in BTC that has either some segwit taint, or that actually comes from a native segwit address? I didn't find anyone who wouldn't accept my coins.
That would be that Bcash idiot Jbreher  |
|
|
|
Just realized that Bitcoin's hash rate is up +100% since January 2018 and around +25% since May as well as +15% from two weeks ago.  |
|
|
|
' Bitcoin is not centralised so per definition not stable' I love stuff like this. Define centralised. Define stable. Explain how one follows the other by definition. What's that shitcake? You can't? Well then fuck you. Also shitcake is now a word, spellchecker. Jojo69 made a link to a 24 page report. Go read it just like i did. To lazy to click you idiot? |
|
|
|
Haha. D^4, you have all the arguing skills of a precocious seven year old.
kampai!
Straight from the Bcash handbook: accuse your opponent of what you are doing. Nice try Jonald Fyookball. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
