I guess the OP didn't realise you had the monopoly on that.  



Just antpool?  Not any other pools you might care to name?  Like maybe a pool sharing a connection with a certain website that likes to pretend BCH is the "true" Bitcoin?  

Depends who you ask.  What you're asking for here is more of an opinion than any kind of absolute truth.  There have arguably been some abuses of the trust system, since it's not really possible to make it infallible, but for the most part, it seems to be working as intended.  There's still time to make adjustments if the abuses that do occur are deemed serious.

Someone asked a question about it.  You were the one who introduced the talk about "getting rich", because you can't help but take things to extremes.  No one thinks that.  There's a clear difference between not being sure on the amounts you could potentially earn and "getting rich".  Don't exaggerate if you don't want people to challenge you on it.

LN will generally allow people to pay less money in fees for their transactions, rather than earning them an income from fees.  No one is "getting rich" from fees.  Not even those scary companies you keep FUDing about.  Their business model is more likely to earn income through consultancy and integration work.  There are millions of companies around the world who would be willing to pay specialists to help them set up their systems if LN takes off.  That's where the real money is.

Except that's not the point of LN at all and it's just something you like to say repeatedly, even though it isn't true.  The point of LN is that off-chain transactions will ease the burden on full nodes and keep the overall size of the blockchain somewhat manageable.  It's also about giving users choice over how they transact.  The fact that people are already using it voluntarily (and aren't earning any astounding income from fees) would seem to suggest that you're talking crap (as usual).



This lie has been debunked already.  Miners were ignoring the fee priority.  Devs have no desire to override what the miners are doing.  Therefore it's pointless to include that code when miners ignore it anyway.

Stop lying and I won't poke the manipulative shitweasel (you're not a bear).

I've never seen anyone advocating that LN is good because they thought they'd get rich from fees.  It's abundantly clear that you would not be able to earn any notable income from routing transactions.  People do realise this from everything I've witnessed here on the forum.  I don't know where you get this perception that people somehow believe LN is going to make them wealthy.  Are you projecting your own early misconceptions onto others again?

LN fees are almost the inverse of on-chain fees.  On-chain, users bid to offer the highest fees to the miners to give their transaction preference over others.  In LN, nodes compete to offer the lowest fees possible in order to attract users to route via them rather than through other nodes.

Now that you mention it, this is how you first appeared on my radar.  You were that guy who literally wouldn't shut up about distribution.  Thing is, you might believe you're doing the honourable thing in situations like back then and also here in this topic now, but all these great injustices you perceive are not a valid excuse to constantly annoy the shit out of everyone because you aren't getting your own way.  It's just petulance.  Try being less of a control freak and accept that your opinion is not the only one.  

You act as though if people don't provide a justification which meets your approval for why the current trust settings are what they are, that it somehow invalidates the current system.  But what you might find is that it's not actually your call to make.  Some users are actually quite happy with how this new trust system is going and it's ultimately up to theymos if this is how we keep it or if it gets changed again. 

The onus is not on us to satisfy your requirements and justify the current system.  People have already demonstrated the effect it would have if we lost ~100 trust list "voters" and I'm quite content with their responses.  If you aren't content, well then that's just too bad.

Okay, but you do realise the part where, if everyone set up their list in the same way as you have, the trust system wouldn't actually work correctly, right?

There is definitely an argument to be made for leading by example.

You might not see a reason, but other people did.  That's not something you can simply disregard.  And then some people expressed their view that it might warrant being a larger amount of merit than initially suggested, just as a precaution.  It's also worth pointing out that the posts I linked to earlier had no hostility in their tone.  It was merely people demonstrating concern for the overall well-being of the forum and not wanting to see this new system easily gamed or manipulated.  Perhaps that's a view you share, but you're going about it in a very caustic and abrasive way.  There's no need to turn this into a witch-hunt by finding a culprit to blame for the way in which it changed.  I'm sure all the salient points will be evaluated and reviewed, but I don't think your current approach to the issue is doing your cause any favours.  Clearly you feel strongly about the matter, but from what I've seen of your various posts about this, it only seems to provoke hostility from others in return towards you.

It's undoubtedly something theymos is keeping an eye on, as they stated this was a 'see-how-it-goes' kinda deal:

The original proposal was 100 earned merits.  The first time someone appeared to question the rationale behind that appears to be this post by LFC_Bitcoin.  Then o_e_l_e_o commented here that it was "not a particularly high bar to be set".  The first reference I can find to 250 merits is TMAN's post here.

I think it's unlikely any one person specifically instructed theymos to change it, but with several people calling it into question, it probably prompted a judgement call.

I'll leave the narratives to you.  You're the storyteller, after all. 

I've made it abundantly clear that users were given multiple choices.  Users could have opted to run a client flagging bits to express support for a 2mb base weight.  But instead, many of them opted to run the client that disconnected nodes flagging those bits. 

Since you think users are just "sheep", you instinctively apportion full responsibility to the devs who wrote the code.
Since I think users made their own judgement call, I naturally apportion full responsibility to the users who ran the code.

This is why we're never going to agree. 

Those securing the network choose what activates.  This is the crux of your inability to comprehend.  "Other groups" can make changes if users agree and activate those changes.  BIP91 is a prime example.

Anyone can code anything they like.  How many more times do I have to say it?  You are the one saying people shouldn't code softforks/activation dates/code that disconnects other clients/"wishy-washy scale factor"/anything even remotely to do with "other networks", or LN as most people tend to call it/etc.  Anyone can code those things.  There are no rules that state people can't code what they like.  Any other dev team can add such code to any client they are developing.  It's not like one dev team have the exclusive usage rights on code which does things that you don't like.  But whoever writes it, the code doesn't mean anything unless people run it.  

And just in case you call flip-flop yet again, I'm not saying that "no one can prevent" changes when it comes to consensus.  Lone extremists out there on the fringes are definitely not in a position to effect change.  As such, the singular "you", as in, specifically, YOU, can't do anything about anything.  You're a speck in the wind.  You literally don't matter in the slightest.  You don't have any numbers behind you.  Because you don't have any numbers behind you, you are limited to running the code you want to run and deciding which chain(s) you wish to follow.  But if a large proportion of those securing the network disagree with what a dev team are doing, they would be in a position to prevent change by simply not running the new code.  No one can prevent a dev team from coding what they like, but they are more than free to continue running the code they already have, or run an entirely different client if they so choose.  Those securing the network do not have to accept changes to the code.  That's why devs can code whatever they like and still not be "in charge".  Do you need me to repeat this a few more times?  Can I explain it to you any more simplistically?  Do you need a drawing to aid in your learning?  I'm pretty sure I say it to you often enough.  Yet it still somehow doesn't sink in.

If I don't personally agree with something, I wouldn't tell people not to code it.  I would certainly tell them why I think their ideas are terrible/stupid/dangerous/etc, sure.  But if you code it, you have my blessing.  Not least because there's nothing I can do to stop you, but primarily because I believe in permissionless freedom.  Anyone can code what they want and if you express views counter to that belief, I'm naturally going to give you a hard time.  Complain about insults all you like, but it'll keep happening because you are so quick to state what you think people "should" do.  It's none of your business.  You're free to code and run what you want, but you don't get to interfere with what other people are coding or running.  And no, before you ask, I don't see a risk of bad code being run as a result, because I feel confident that people, for the most part, recognise terrible ideas when they see them.  I'm happy to let the market decide, because it has a pretty good track record of making sensible decisions.  You can make your excuses for why other clients have failed.  You can pretend it's some sort of sinister collusion.  You can say it's all "social drama".  But at the end of the day, it's meaningless.  The only thing that matters is what people run.

For what must be the hundredth time of explaining it:
 
Your problem is not that Core are "in control" (because they aren't).
Your problem is not that consensus has "been bypassed" (because it can't be).
Your problem is not that we "don't have a level playing field" (because we do).

Your problem is that whenever someone creates code you actually like, very few people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.
Your problem is that whenever Core creates code you utterly despise, lots and lots of people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.



No one needs permission.  Bitcoin is permissionless.  Again, anyone can code anything.  Code means nothing unless people run it.  Stop denying reality.  This is how it works.



Insanity is rarely considered helpful.  



No thanks.  Leave no FUD unchallenged.  It applies to you and Craig "Scammer" Wright in equal measure.  Shine a spotlight on the bullshit and call it out for what it is.  If he ever decides to disappear, we'll let him disappear.  Until then, the more he lies, the more we'll refute it.  Ditto for you.

Would the headline not be clearer as "Yearly Transaction Value", rather than "Volume"?  On-chain, at least, Bitcoin clearly handles a smaller number of transactions compared to PayPal.  But the BTC transactions are worth more in USD.  Which is mainly the result of BTC's dollar price rising over the years.  Throughput is increasing on-chain with more companies batching transactions and SegWit seeing wider usage now, but it's still difficult to see things in context if the natural growth is distorted by fiat price swings in this graph.  At the very least, it should be accompanied by a second graph purely showing the number of transactions.

As a hypothetical example, if Bitcoin somehow happens to carry an identical number of transactions in 2019 as it did in 2018 and the price rises again this year, that graph would still look more favourable next year, even without an increase in actual throughput.

Speaking of fees, how many users would BSV need to have at BSV's current average fee to match the current fees miners get from BTC?  

And what makes you think that BSV would be the first choice for people who don't want to pay the fees on the BTC chain?  There are thousands of other coins.  The only remarkable thing about BSV is the fraudulent clown at the helm trying to convince everyone they're supposedly satoshi.  Not exactly a selling point.  Beyond that, it's another coin that's slightly above Dogecoin in terms of nodecount.  Why should anyone care?

And if by some miracle BSV does become popular and start filling blocks, it's going to be a few big companies running what few nodes remain.  You will destroy any shred of decentralisation.

On what possible basis?  BSV has ~650 nodes.  LN has ~6500 nodes.  It's pretty clear which one the market prefers.

Not a fan of this at all.  It's bad enough I have to do it at work, I don't want to do it here as well.  Passwords are enough of a ballache as it is.

Bitcoin is about personal responsibility and I would hope this forum wouldn't take the "Nanny State" approach and interfere with users' wishes regarding security.  Just like how 2FA isn't compulsory here as it is on some sites.

I know, right?  Does seem slightly perverse.  I use cash wherever possible.  Credit/Debit Cards just give more power and influence to the banks.  Why should a bunch of reckless gambling addicts who destroyed the global economy be trusted to monitor our every move while profiting from our actions?  It's bizarre how people are just prepared to accept that as normal, somehow.  It's bad enough with the various governments around the world fully engaged in the "war on cash" so the banksters can forever be the middleman for every single financial transaction ever.  We don't need to bolster that by contributing to it ourselves.  I think people would eventually realise their mistake if we ever found ourselves in a world that no longer had cash in it.  But it would be too late, then. 

Don't attack physical cash.  Anything is better than relying on a bunch of shady banksters.



I don't know why we can't just all settle on the view that "all forms of money/wealth/currency/etc will be used by criminals" and just leave it at that, heh.

A Lightning channel is opened and closed with an entry on the blockchain, so there is no "weakening".  While the channel is open, the two parties within the channel are each responsible for keeping the commitment state updated, which is why both participants ideally need to be online.  If you need to understand the underlying rationale behind how you can maintain the authenticity of each user's balance while not recording to the blockchain each time, have a look at this post.  

It's undoubtedly a different trust model than you might be accustomed to, plus the model might change in future with "eltoo".  But, for the moment, that's how it works.

I'm going to walk you slowly through what just happened here, step by step:

• I made the points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.
  
  
• You made a post which completely failed to overcome those points and then added the false assertion about "not using the consensus that has been existant^(sic) for years".
  
  
• I pointed out that you don't even understand the consensus that has existed for years, since you incessantly whine about "in-flight updates" and softforks in general, claiming that's not how Bitcoin "should" be.  Despite the fact it has been within the rules to do that for a long time.
  
  
• You then use that statement in an attempt to disprove my initial points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates, even though it doesn't disprove those points at all.  Those points still stand and your broken logic doesn't change that.  Again, you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.  You have failed to refute those points, whilst also demonstrating in the process that you don't understand Bitcoin.
  

 

Other people would need to agree with you for any of this to change.  They would have to run code enforcing different rules.  Rules that don't permit softforks, activation dates, disconnecting nodes, or whatever else it is you don't like about Bitcoin depending on what day it is and whether it suits your argument at the time or not.  The users on this network clearly don't agree with you, based on the code they appear to generally be running.  Also, your reasoning skills are abysmal.  Quit while you're behind, it's just getting sad now.

It used the consensus that the rules allow.  BIP34, for example, was being developed in 2012, before you even started using Bitcoin.  Why did you even bother joining this network in the first place if you can't abide by softforks and believe them to be "bypassing consensus"?.  You don't even understand what has been "existent for years".