The Bitcoin economy attracts hashing power, as well as the hashing power attracts the economy. It's symbiotic.

We'll see what happens, but don't over-sell BU's advantage (which is dwindling, miners are more and more pointing their hashing power at Segwit pools, and removing hashing power from BU pools)

Is this happening with the Linux versions of 0.95.1 and 0.14? I am yet to try using them together.

Except one crucial difference.

Not just anyone can open a bank, there are very significant real-world political obstacles to get past, very few genuinely new banks open as a result.

Lightning can behave like banking, but because people have the freedom to open their own banks (really more like a mixture of a bank and a VISA/Amex type payment processor), they will do that.

Some people will try, and fail. Regular everyday people paying each other small amounts through channels might decide the price is too high. Or, they might decide that price is worth it, for the enhanced privacy of doing business in a private channel.

But even small businesses will be able to compete on costs with channels. Maybe an ecosystem of small payment processors might arise, servicing a small geographical area (for instance, a landowner leasing shop units would do well to make using their channel a part of the contract for all the shop leases they offer).

Or maybe the economics will be such that very small shops can afford to run their own channel. If a small shop has goods of sufficient quality, the clientele may prefer to pay the higher channel fees in order to get the high quality product that our small shop sells.



So no, dino, it's not "just like banking". It resembles it in some ways, but in fact it resembles Hayek's "free banking concept " most of all. Now do be quiet, people are interested in having a productive conversation about Lightning.

Well, maybe a better description would be as a hybrid soft & hard fork. Miners are essentially hardforked, and regular non-mining nodes are soft-forked.

I'm pretty sure shaolinfry added the legacy-block version orphaning since the initial draft, I read it carefully when I did.


If this got the users' support, then it's no less radical than my previous thoughts on getting Segwit activated by direct user action, I'm willing to promote the idea of orphaning blocks indicating BU strings (although that's perhaps becoming less necessary now that users have come out against it, I still consider it a risk that BU could hardfork as an attack without user support)

So maybe this is not so bad. With BU pools and miners falling, perhaps BIP148 could work to galvanise support for Segwit activation by the miners before users start using a BIP148 client to force the miners' hands. I'd probably use a BIP148 client if shaolinfry released it, but any released binary needs gitian signatures, and that involves such an endorsement from known developers. achow101 stated that Core devs are majority opposed to BIP148, and I guess I can see why in a way. We'll have to wait as everyone thinks it over some more, it would be constructive if actual comments from the devs were forthcoming on this (as it seems they are short on ideas as to what to do, other than "nothing")

Hmmmm, not what I thought it was (BIP148). If that's the case, it won't work as a soft-fork, it's a Segwit hard-fork, UAHF not UASF.

Did the specification not change recently? I got a different impression from the draft I read, if this is a new change. Simply allowing Segwit-ready miners to begin mining Segwit blocks is sufficient.

There is no blockchain fork possible, regardless of the majority hashpower or the order in which Segwit or legacy blocks are found. Either type of block is equally valid to either type of miner, it wouldn't be a soft-fork if that were the case.

@stdset

You're making and invalid assumption: that miners using non-Segwit clients will reject blocks with Segwit transactions. They won't, the Segwit soft-fork was desgined in a way to prevent that happening.

What would happen as a result of a large proportion of the hashrate mining old style blocks only? The more users that use Segwit addresses, the more old-blocks miners won't be able to pick up fees from confirming the Segwit user's transactions. Segwit miners will be more profitable, but fewer Segwit transactions would be possible. Segwit miners will have more than double the blocksize to fill, so it's not as serious as it sounds, but users will also have to compete more to get their P2PKH/P2SH coins into P2WPKH and P2WSH addresses, because of the reduced amount of Segwit blocks available.

You're one of those people that wants to wreck people's lives not once, but twice?


1. They wreck their own lives by doing something stupid with their money

2. You wreck their lives a 2nd time by advocating that the 1st action should carry additional punishment, administered by the legal system


You should be ashamed of yourself

You don't need officials to recognise facts for the facts to be true.

If Satoshi had asked permission, or for official recognition, before he programmed the original client, can you guess what would have happened? Seeking official recognition, or approval, goes against what Bitcoin is about, you have the wrong mindset, and Bitcoin therefore is not for you.

Bitcoin is valuable because it can't be controlled or regulated, if you pursue that line, you will not get what you're wanting anyway. Real Bitcoiners aren't going to be interested in the outcome, and you might just get official violence bursting through the door to your house. Have fun with that.

As will I.

The developers arguing against it are contemptible. It's supposed to be a readiness formality, not a vote. If you think that the disruption will be too much for your delicate little nerves to handle, you clearly don't understand the political significance of Bitcoin to begin with. We're being forced into taking drastic steps by the miners, and now "Core" wants to stonewall too?

I'd like to know exactly which Core contributors are taking this non-productive, obstructive stance, those that lack courage are not suited for this type of project. The users would certainly have sufficient fortitude to back this move, they're interested in the growing success of the project not to mention their own success.

achow101, which Core developers lack the fortitude to support the users making their own decision on activating Segwit, BIP148 or otherwise?

So it's now stalemate from 2 directions at once?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the devs against BIP148 to quit Bitcoin altogether given that attitude? Once a different cryptocoin implements a successful 2nd layer, Bitcoin will lose a significant competitive edge. There's nothing magic about contributing to the Bitcoin codebase, another team could implement Segwit and other future technologies without them.

Why continue to be a part of a project that's being prevented from progressing? The devs are going to run out of non-fork improvements and maintenance coding (for the most part). I'm seriously considering looking at why I'm still involved at all.

Anyone signing the petition runs the risk of the information being abused.

What if the Indian Govenment don't care about the petition, and want to seize all BTC in the Indian states? It only takes one leak of that information for all the people who give their information to a good cause for the whole thing to be turned into a bad cause.

"Be the change you want to see". Don't ask permission, no government can stop you using Bitcoin without destroying everyone's else's rights too.

Does that argument not favour a hashing algo that does work with GPUs/FPGAs? Is that even possible without the risk of an ASIC being developed?

I'd be convinced to start CPU or GPU mining on a changed PoW, Jetcash. Others may just well do the same (mining was pretty popular amongst computing enthusiasts in the early days of CPU and GPU mining, and hence far more decentralised).

You're describing it as if miners are part of the Bitcoin Corporation, who cannot lose their position/role. No such concepts exist in Bitcoin, either you've got the right hardware and running costs, or you haven't. That's all it takes to be a Bitcoin miner.

If truth is un-observable, then theories and logic are also. Logic. Your pants fell down, pull them back up

If you're in India, DO NOT send any suggestions, for your own safety. The information collected could be used against you, whether this MP is well meaning or not.

And you're wrong, your theory doesn't make as much sense as you believe.


There is no reason to "create" the Revelations-inspired money: fiat is already that money, where supply, demand and use are controlled by the banking elite.


There is a reason for megalomaniacs to create Bitcoin themselves: if it's possible at all, then they must get there first. Remember the golden rule: who owns the gold, makes the rules.

It's far simpler than you ever present it, and for some reason, simplicity is your enemy.



Now, can you actually argue against the points I'm making directly, without saying "I already have", or "you're not smart enough to understand"?

Doesn't that logic collapse on itself?

If one cannot know the objective truth about anything, how can the reasoning that you're using to observe that truth be considered reliable? If all knowledge is unknowable, then reality is an epistemological negative feedback loop. Your theory is self-refuting  

This is the modus operandi of this particular brand of trolling summed up perfectly.


"Super-smart stream-of-consciousness uber-mensch brerates the 'little-people' for not being able to come up with over-long and over-wrought confabulated arguments". I risk sounding too much like them with that description, but that's how I'm seeing it. Maybe shorten it to just plain "intellectual trolling"

You never refute my arguments with anything meaningful, always arguments from authority and insults.

I wonder what the people reading your thread think