More theoretical and idealogical bs Such arguments! Much convincing! |
|
|
|
That's funny. I have a Cripplecoiner arguing with me right now about how my funding of multiple nodes does not increase decentralization as I am a single point of failure. Yet here we have the architects of LN wanting a single client to open 5 separate payment channels to do just that.
Oh the hypocrisy!
As usual you are clearly lost on the concept and the technology. But carry on thinking whatever brain turd you come up with makes any sense! PS. It doesn't and you are so confused once again. |
|
|
|
Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale. But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all. Are you suggesting they are not? I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse. Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit. Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution? |
|
|
|
I notice the OP there isn't adressing the issue that when Blockstream received their funding, LN wasn't yet around, so it's a bit hard to see how their business plan that got them 21 million USD could have relied on pushing people towards LN... This was indeed pointed out to him by me and several others. |
|
|
|
You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.
Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services. You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java? Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?  All three of those are valid examples. All three likely have weaker network effects than lightning nodes. MyMonero has weakest network effects though. It doesn't have a thicket of related and dependent products to resist substitution. That's all arguable certainly. Seems the centralization/network effect of lightning nodes might not hold if Rusty gets his way...  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzz2jz |
|
|
|
What exactly are you referring to? For once it seemed to me the more balanced and reasonable opinions prevailed.. |
|
|
|
how did I not find this guy's medium blog before? full of gems https://medium.com/@allenpiscitelloWhy Votes Don’t Matter
Many of the proposals for the fork include a voting mechanism for miners to signal that they are upgraded. However, miners very easily can lie about their intentions. A miner may wish to trick other miners into mining the fork, then continue to mine the small block sizes in an attempt to have less competition by having miners waste efforts on a fork that will be orphaned. Votes will be extremely hard to trust. |
|
|
|
You mean the one that got thoroughly put to shame by mostly every sane poster on there? You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it. Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services. Lock-ins like everyone is using fiat/CC so I should feel obliged to do the same? Honestly not sure what you're getting at? |
|
|
|
Chinese bourses now higher. Could it be that they expect lower renminbi in the future? I look forward to the day when the mainstreem looks to bitcoin pricing of the different currencies to decide their real value.
Nop, it's the new block size consensus making ripples! |
|
|
|
Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:  you still playing that game where you pretend any random thing that suits your delusions is confirmed true if price goes up  maybe you should move away from the keyboard forever then, we had a nice little rally that time you went camping or w/e |
|
|
|
This is all very interesting but does nothing to support what is basically a bunch of circumstancial evidences to yet again try to paint blockstream in a bad light.
You're right, it's all circumstantial - just like any conflict of interest doesn't necessarily imply an actual foul - yet it is a concern. The Blockstream people have been trying to argue that it's not even a concern or possible worry.That's just plain wrong and we've been through that before. |
|
|
|
This really puts teeth on the Blockstream conflict-of-interest charge. Blockstream was incorporated a full year before Lightning Network was introduced by independent developers. This is a load of BS and yet another attempt at vilifying respectable developers by the reddit mob. The idea that most transactions could be moved off the chain certainly existed before the public lightning announcement. Adam Back was talking about sidechains at the 2013 San Jose conference. Another forum member told me he was investigating micropayment channels for off chain transactions in May of 2014. The date at which Lightning was publicly announced does not prove anything about what the Blockstream founders told their investors. This is all very interesting but does nothing to support what is basically a bunch of circumstancial evidences thrown together to yet again try to paint blockstream in a bad light. |
|
|
|
This really puts teeth on the Blockstream conflict-of-interest charge. Blockstream was incorporated a full year before Lightning Network was introduced by independent developers. This is a load of BS and yet another attempt at vilifying respectable developers by the reddit mob. |
|
|
|
Cripplecoiners going down fast: [–]blockchainwallet 27 points 6 hours ago Hey all, It's definitely important to keep the spotlight on this topic. Blockchain.info is publicly in favor of larger blocks. We think Gavin's approach is diligent and reasonable. https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/595676380320407553Sincerely, The Blockchain.info Team permalink save report give gold reply I would be worried to get support from the fuckups at blockchain.info  |
|
|
|
Opinion? You're an idiot
Perspectives? No such thing is happening
Solution? Go sit your ass in the corner
Orly? https://twitter.com/kncminer/status/631098358657077249Nothing is happening? Are you done spreading your lies yet in order to hold the price up to sell your bags? Yes indeed nothing so much resembling any percentage of the network having "switched" to 8MB block is happening. |
|
|
|
|
Opinion? You're an idiot
Perspectives? No such thing is happening
Solution? Go sit your ass in the corner
|
|
|
|
Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.
1) Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.
2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.
I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists. I don't follow your logic. Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective. I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed. It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment. Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer. I used "logic" to sound arrogant, it is a bad habit. Anyway, there is absolutely no higher risk with 1.1 MB than 1.0 MB. I don't want to repeat all the other arguments either way. There is also absolutely no point to move from 1.0 MB to 1.1 MB. I think it would be a good move. Revitalise trust from those with only toes in, then moon...  Hard fork the network and risk catastrophic consensus failure to "revitalise trust" is a good move!? You are out of your mind.  |
|
|
|
Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.
1) Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.
2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.
I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists. I don't follow your logic. Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective. I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed. It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment. Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer. I think what he is saying is that he doesn't think the [2] people want bitcoin to fail, they want to leverage the artificial fee market to push the adoption of their preferred alternative technology. Right, hold back, not kill entirely, because what they have is only dreams and vaporware. Vaporware you say? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
