I haven't dealt with the trust system very much, but I'd personally leave such a rating as neutral feedback.  It allows other users to be aware that they don't have a track record and doesn't negatively impact users looking to get into escrow services.

Obviously, if they defraud anyone, then negative feedback is going to be justified.  But I don't believe trust should be a presumption of 'guilty until proven innocent'.

The mindlessness above is that some newbie spammer copy/pasted and plagiarised your own words, then added some smileys at the end and you didn't even notice.  Did you really think someone actually agreed with you?  That's just precious.   

I'm just hoping this isn't yet another one of those times where some celebrity says something positive about Bitcoin and everyone makes a big deal out of it, because they think it'll help with price/adoption/whatever.  Then the celebrity says/does something stupid and everyone suddenly pretends it was never a big deal and moves onto the next celebrity who said something positive. 

True.  A significant number of people currently involved in Bitcoin are speculators who are attempting to grow their national currency holdings.  That indeed doesn't help in reducing the quantity of IOUs the banksters get to play with. 

But if there ever comes a time in future where things change and lots of people receive their income in BTC and then spend their BTC back into the economy for goods and services, then it would help reduce global debt.  But if this is going to happen, it probably won't be for some time yet.

Uh-oh, someone's turning into a cranky franky.  

Maybe take your own advice from that other topic, which I've helpfully amended to fit this topic:


If you think I'm being unfair to you, it's because your ideas are fundamentally misguided.  You don't even stop to consider the consequences.  It almost seems like you can't even understand what the consequences would be, even when they're pointed out to you in no uncertain terms.  Yes, I clearly do have legitimate concerns over a fee priority formula being added as a consensus rule.  I support the notion of fairer fees based on how often people transact, that part is an idea I could get on board with.  But your proposed implementation is utterly abysmal.  I explained why it would be a bad idea as a consensus rule and you haven't presented any counter-arguments to convince me otherwise.  Because you don't understand why your idea is bad.  You just repeat the same incoherent nonsense.  You think you're discussing things that would help and I'm discussing why I believe you are wrong.  This will continue until I believe you have stopped being wrong.  

If you can't comprehend how your idea of fees being a consensus rule might split the network, then you are in no position to blame others for the fact that no one likes your ideas.  The fault clearly lies with you.

It didn't even have to be a "great" business model, it just had to be better than all the sketchy hardware vendors out there who defrauded their customers.  Companies like BFL and GAW set the bar pretty low, in fairness.  If Bitmain have a dominant position in the market, it's because the position wasn't really contested back in the day.  Things are improving now, though.  

The importance of strong competition can't be underestimated.  We could use sport as an analogy.  I got a silver medal in a Judo tournament once.  That's not a brag, since there were a total of two people in that particular weight division   .  Suffice to say, I wasn't very good at Judo, so it wasn't difficult for the other guy to take 1st place.  But if there had been a greater number of skilled competitors, it might not have been as easy for them to win.  And obviously, I didn't earn that second place.  Someone more deserving would have taken it if there had been more participants.

Bitmain, similarly, have had a pretty easy ride until recently.  They didn't have any real competitors to go up against.  Hopefully, as time goes by, there will be a greater number of successful companies fighting for market share.

Volume certainly helps, but doesn't necessarily guarantee stability, though.  Volume can be amplified by market movements, during both bull runs and price plummets, as speculators look to profit from the shifting prices.  Some would argue it's market liquidity that stabilises prices.

Now read Squatter's post I've quoted below repeatedly until you understand it:


Fees in general are not a consensus rule.  Even things like the minimum relay fee can be altered by individual nodes without breaking consensus.  No one has to "publicly release a client" for any of this to apply.  It's just a matter of changing some configuration settings.    

Speak to the miners if you want to convince someone that your ideas about fees are worth implementing.  They are the only ones that can help you.  

There is no flip flop, you just don't understand Bitcoin well enough.  In fact, this scenario perfectly demonstrates why "devs don't need permission" and "devs can't change rules unless others agree" is not a flip flop.  And we all know how big a fan you are of running scenarios.  Let's pretend for a moment that Devs did introduce a fixed fee formula as a consensus rule (which has never been done before) in a new version of their client.  There's nothing to stop them putting that in their client if they wanted to.  They don't need permission to do that.  But then, if non-mining users chose to run it and none of the miners chose to run it, there would be a fork.  Miners could continue to use the current client-side rules and anyone else running the new client where fees are a consensus rule could find themselves on a network that has no miners on it.  Good job, franky1, your idea just split the network in a divisive fashion.  But seeing as you claim not to be a fan of controversy, it's probably not a smart move.  Which is one of the many reason devs chose, quite wisely, to leave fees up to the miners.  

If people don't agree with the code and don't run it, then clearly the devs don't make all the decisions.  Those securing the chain have to agree and run the code before the code can do anything.  If some of the people securing the chain enforce a consensus rule that others securing the chain don't, there can be a fork.  But not all rules are consensus rules.  Some things are left for users and miners to decide as node policy.  There are good reasons for this.

Again, you need to convince miners that your ideas about fees are beneficial.  Fees are not a consensus rule, because that could conceivably split the network.  Constantly raving about what devs do or don't do will not get you what you want.  Stop telling us to "research" when you are the ones who demonstrates a total lack of understanding time and time again.

Take it up with the miners if you want fee priority changed.  Miners are making the decision.  Not Devs. 

It should be abundantly clear by this point that:

a) developers want to leave that choice in the hands of miners
b) developers have no ability to force miners to do anything and are relatively powerless even if they did want to make that choice
c) developers don't make all the decisions and it's a double standard for you to claim they do whilst simultaneously advocating they should make decisions about fees (which they don't want to and can't anyway, because see points a+b)



That's right, be a good little lapdog and keep spreading Craig Wright's arguments.  Then wonder why no one takes you seriously.

He seems to have influenced you pretty strongly.  You appear to use a number of his arguments when you talk about how you think Bitcoin should work.  Let's look at some comparisons:

---

---

---

---

Looks like you two have got a great deal in common.  Like two peas in a pod bits of corn in a turd.  I wonder why you don't want to talk about him?  I guess we'll just let people form their own conclusions.  

The proposal is fully outlined but I don't think the code is complete yet.  "Wumbo" is the current name for two parties opting into an uncapped channel.  The current limits will remain in place by default.  Both parties will have to agree to remove the caps.

This may have been true for a small number of people, but some of the more hardline fruitloops really do run a client that's based on an outdated 2014 version of bitcoind.  They claim all coins stored in SegWit addresses will eventually be stolen, simply because they believe themselves to be the economic majority and think that ordinary people will somehow want to follow "their" network when their fork (that doesn't include SegWit) takes place. 

I wish I were making this up, since they almost make the bigblockers sound sane by comparison.  But sadly, they're very real.

LN provides benefits, but I don't describe it as a "solution" in the sense that it somehow means we don't need other features to assist with scaling.  I'd call myself an extremist if I thought that way.  I believe we are best served by pursuing multiple ideas to assist with scaling (just not any of your terrible ideas). 

I have no intention to become a hub for profit.  There are risks to engaging in financial dealings with complete strangers, regardless of the medium.  I would hope most people are sensible enough to realise that.  I plan on only opening channels with people and businesses I know and trust, because LN is a different trust model to Bitcoin and I've always been clear about that.  I won't be routing payments unless it's to help friends or family.  I don't plan on profiteering from my loved ones.  But please keep telling me how I'm some sort of monster who wants to force people into "banking 2.0" or whatever else it is you're raving about.  It doesn't make you sound like a zealot at all.

Neither Bitcoin nor Lightning are get-rich-quick schemes.  Only fools believe otherwise.  Those people are playing with fire and will probably get burnt.  I'm looking for utility and I believe that's what our current direction will provide.  And if we're wrong, we can change direction if that's what users choose to do.  We can argue about it all you like, but neither of us are having any noticeable impact on anything in the grand scheme of things.  Developers are still going to work on LN and the userbase is going to continue growing if users recognise a benefit to them.  If you were right about all this, why are people still using it?  Where are all your "diverse" people saying that it's just as bad as you say it is? 

Describing LN as "the thunderdome" somehow makes it sound a lot less nerdy than it currently is.  As nicknames go, it's actually kinda cool.  Obviously your analogy bears no resemblance to reality, though.  It's just more of the same baseless fear-mongering you're renowned for.

I honestly don't see how there can be a simple and clear-cut response to this one.  Everyone seems to have different opinions on where to draw the line.  At what point does use become abuse?  If it is an abuse, how should it be handled?  Is it a design flaw?  How much is too much?  Are some people being unnecessarily greedy?  Is fairness or freedom the more important quality to preserve?  There are just so many questions this issue raises and it's almost impossible to get people to agree on the answers.

As a loose analogy, if you went to an 'all-you-can-eat buffet' and ate so much food that there wasn't enough for the other paying customers, you could probably understand why some people might be a little annoyed about that.  

It's also worth pointing out that it's not just the BCH/SV crowd who appear to have jumped ship.  I often wonder what happened to some of the militant hardcore "1mb forever" fanatics who used to post here frequently but now stay silent?  Some of them clearly weren't happy with the capacity increase provided by SegWit.  You can tell it's probably the right course of action if the extremists on both sides of the debate didn't like it.  

---

Quoted as evidence that you can't even understand people, let alone LN.  When you say stuff like this, it just goes to show that you're either making this shit up, or, you genuinely believe the stuff you write, which means that your brain doesn't seem to be wired up the same way as the average person here.  That's the only reason I can think of why you are completely incapable of understanding what people repeatedly tell you.  It's just one wild accusation after another with you.  It couldn't possibly be that ordinary people would have legitimate reasons for wanting LN.  There has to be something nefarious at play because that's the only way you can make sense of it with your unique mind.  I appreciate it can't be easy to understand people if you are on the spectrum, or whatever it is with you, but please, just stop pretending you know what the rest of us are thinking when you evidently haven't got the slightest clue.  There are positives to the Lightning Network.  It has support from users, so it's happening.  



Said the person in the topic who is most pissed off at Bitcoin because they can't respect the direction Bitcoin users have chosen.  You are the one who is pissed off.  That's why you dedicate so much time and effort to your misguided little crusade.  

And while you have your ineffective little crusade, we have the code we run, which enforces the rules we want.

Code > Crusades

You've made it abundantly clear how you think Bitcoin should work.  Come up with better code if you want users to join you on your (currently imaginary and entirely non-existent) network that's apparently so much better than what we're currently doing.  

If you don't have code to enforce what you want, then you can't have what you want.  It's that simple.



-digress  +derail  

And why don't you just wait to find out?  Then you can ask all the LN users who don't atomic swap to other currencies.  Not that you'll listen to them, of course.  They'll give you an honest answer, but instead you'll cry conspiracy and make up some other nonsense that better suits a narrative that will only ever make sense in your head.  

Said the dishonest minority.   

---

Yep.  Just about every topic he posts in.  I'm almost tempted to propose he gets his own subforum where he is safely quarantined and can derail every topic in there.  Doesn't matter what the subject is, he has to find a way to turn it into SegWit/LN bashing.

Thank you for proving my point.  The longest chain told incompatible clients to gtfo and they did.  It's almost as though it does exactly what it says on the tin.



Yes.  A rule was enforced with the consensus mechanism to disconnect nodes flagging bit 6 and bit 8.  It literally says right there in the whitepaper that new rules can be enforced and that's precisely what happened.  Now that you've literally just explained it to yourself, does it make sense now? 

I swear if Inigo Montoya were here, he'd tell you that he doesn't think those words mean what you think they mean.  And he'd be right.   



First you'd have to convince me that's what we currently have.  I can't use written documents to confirm or deny things that only exist in your imagination.  You should try speaking to a therapist.



Strangely, those who can't understand that Lightning now has more nodes than every forkcoin combined are not taken seriously by anyone when they spread FUD about technologies that haven't even finished being developed yet.  Troll harder.

---

Which becomes all the more amusing when they deny that non-mining nodes are the very reason why they aren't getting all the "improvements" they think should be implemented. 

---

I don't doubt that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen believed they were doing the right thing.  I just think they miscalculated (as did I, along with many others at the time) the level of resistance they would encounter.  I think in the earlier stages of the dreaded blocksize debate, some people (again, myself included) generally weren't aware of the now-self-evident phenomenon I raised earlier in this topic:


It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it.  Those people who are supporting this network without reimbursement by running a non-mining node have already paid a cost, so understandably they will enforce rules on the network which prevent increasing that cost against their will.  More people now seem to respect this logic.

Oh, boo-hoo.  Cry me a river.



Consensus is whatever users decide it is.  Your wishful thinking is inconsequential.  It's about what you can enforce in code.  If you can't enforce your wishes in code (and you definitely can't), then you are wasting your time telling us how you'd like it to be.



Please quote the part of the whitepaper where it declares the purpose of Bitcoin is to have a bunch of incompatible proposals in a constant state of deadlock, where no one is able to move forward with any new ideas. 

While more diversity would be nice, it has never been a prerequisite.  The level of diversity other users are willing to accept is yet another one of those things you don't get to decide for them. 

Run what you want.  Respect what others run.  It's really not that hard.

Learn to read, FFS.  If I am certain I don't approve of a feature being proposed in an alternative client, I am under no obligation to remain connected to the clients proposing that feature (particularly if remaining connected to them could result in replay attacks).  

How many more times do you need this explained before it is finally absorbed through your dense cranium?  The date on which features are due to activate is immaterial.  If users do not want clients with incompatible proposals connecting to them, there is absolutely nothing you can do about that.  They don't have to wait for a feature to activate in order to disconnect the client proposing it.  What is it with your arbitrary fixation with dates?  No one cares.  It's literally irrelevant.  Doesn't matter in the slightest.  




There is no flip flop.  You are just incapable of understanding what is being explained to you, because you are under the entirely mistaken impression that consensus means only alternative clients can initiate a fork by activating new features.  That belief is not correct.  The other option, which apparently needs to be explained to you a billion times over, is that users can enforce rules that disconnect alternative clients.  To reiterate, clients following current consensus rules can introduce new rules that effectively fork other clients off the network.  That's entirely their prerogative.  Not your call.  Your obsession with dates is as meaningless as the utter drivel you spout in every topic you derail.  Kindly get a clue.

And don't forget the part where the /btc1 devs pulled the plug in November 2017.  It's kinda hard for forks to gain adoption if the devs abandon them completely.  Another potential barrier to adoption is if your chain potentially stalls at block 494782 because there was a bug and there weren't nearly enough people testing the code to notice.  But yeah, definitely all Core's fault again.    

Keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who supported SegWit2x as a viable option.  I was genuinely interested in seeing how it was going to unfold with what looked to be a looming three-way fork and believed SegWit2x had the potential to outperform BCH in terms of market share and overall usage.  But ultimately, I recognise there wasn't adequate support from non-mining nodes and there's little doubt it would have been more centralised.  Perhaps in future, this may change.  You might call it "REKT", but some might call it "users not feeling comfortable being pressured into a change they didn't support".  It's all a matter of perspective and opinion.  But the one thing that should be abundantly clear by this point is that supporters of SegWit2x failed to present a convincing enough argument (and also working code, but that's beside the point).

---

My stance is pretty similar.  It's difficult to find a way to summarise it succinctly.  Beyond what you've said, I'd add that there's a balance to be struck between supporting proposals that we might personally agree with, but not getting so attached to them that it potentially clouds our judgement to the fact that other users may be unlikely to accept that proposal because it potentially hampers their own usage and needs.  

People can certainly try to argue that "no change" could be hampering their usage and needs when it comes to topics like throughput, but if you can't get what you want without taking away what other people already have (and deem valuable, like decentralisation), it shouldn't come as a surprise when those other people decide that what you want is not very good.  Why should they give up what they have for what you want?

I might, for example, think a given proposal is the greatest thing in the world, but if other users don't agree and won't get behind it because it has a negative impact on them, I then have two options.  Either to respect their choices, go with the flow and accept the current consensus.  Or to take the plunge on a minority fork that then has to fight for survival in the open market.  I might mistakenly believe I have the third option to delay or block a different proposal those other users support by running code that doesn't support it.  But I could potentially find that option fails if those other users deem my code invalid and remove me from their network, which is their right.

If an individual does believe in a proposal strongly enough and there isn't wide support for it, they might suddenly find the need to be willing and prepared to move forward as a fork without expecting to somehow inherit BTC's userbase, hashrate, adoption, etc.  It's not like you can put a gun to the heads of those securing the chain and make them tag along.  It's up to other users if they want to join you or not.  It's strange how often people forget this and just vehemently nail their colours to the mast without compromise.  They think if they shout loudly and often enough that it might change things.  But it doesn't.