Yet Segwit drives a trifurcating wedge right through any vestige of fungibility. Three distinct classes of BTC. All with differing security properties. This is novel in Segwit.


Well, for some value of 'pretty much' ... (i.e., No, a malleability fix is not required, it merely makes it easier. And Segwit is not the only possible malleability fix. Even if it were, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset bundled a bunch of other crap in with Segwit itself. Lastly, the security-destroying so-called 'soft fork' activation methodology was not required).

... well, for this particular implementation of LN, anyhoo.

Yes. Fungibility. Reliance on miners not to revert to 'anyonecanspend' - an incentive for which only increases over time. A new ability for miners to fail to validate all portions of blocks. The list goes on. And that's before starting into the issues with LN.


Bullshit. The community has been over them multiple times. The devs consider these issues acceptable risks. I don't. Perhaps you are merely ignorant of them, D^4?


I am quite familiar with Segwit features, thankyouverymuch. And its antifeatures as well - of which you seem to be willfully ignorant.

Your line of inquiry really makes little sense. What do you expect I would learn from 'using' LN that I don't know already?

I mean, I'll grant that LN 'works' in the default case. Of course, there is nothing that I find useful that I could do with it. What am I going to do - draw another penis on some stupid crowdsourced image? What a waste of time. AintNobodyGotTimeForThat.png.

Incidentally, your carrot analogy is stupid. Somehow, I expected better from you.

I think you need to learn something about the initial distribution of the coins you are cavalierly grouping together. One of these stands out as being something other than a pure fork. Can you guess which one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Gold#The_fork

Why? Other than provide more Bitcoin dedicated security equipment than any other party, what have they done that is so heinous?

Of course not. I am a Segwit skeptic. Why would I commit any of my funds to something I think is fundamentally flawed? That would be irrational, right?


No. What does that LN to do with Segwit? I'm not following your train of inquiry here.

Here is a question for you. Are you familiar with the term 'fungibility'? Can you understand how creating two classes of BTC destroys this property? (Well, after claiming one question, you asked two.)

Bizzaro way of looking at it. Makes one think...

Nice mid-sentence edit of my quote. I see you even added a period to make it look like I was saying something completely different than that which I did. The only thing worse than a dogmatic dummy is a dishonest dissembling dogmatic dummy. Henceforth, you shall be known as D^4.


youreself? comming? oure? Nice job, D^4.

I have. Hence my position as a Segwit skeptic.

Just means that only the most solid business ventures would get funded. With all the underwater drek clogging the system today, I don't see a problem with tighter investment policies.

Of course, the shittiest aspect of the fiat money system is that each new dollar that is zapped into existence gains its value by quite literally stealing purchasing power from each dollar that was in existence the moment before. And that such new dollars are -- without exception -- awarded to already-rich parasites. On the backs of the downtrodden.

So each vertex shares an edge with three or so of its closest neighbors, and there are no long hops? Got it.

I call bullshit.

Nearly every miner is directly connected to nearly every other miner. Those are the first order members of the network.

Most non-mining, fully-validating entities (frequently mis-characterized as 'nodes') are attached to a small number of other such NMFV entities that have many many many connections, and a handful of random connections to other insignificant NMFV entities.

It should be obvious, but this fact seems to have escaped your attention: the fact that fiat is backed by proof of war does not lead to a conclusion that it is not shit.

Or, there will be a reckoning. Brought on by a r3kt-oning.

My guess is 'no'. I'm probably the most persistent Bitcoin* believer / SegWit skeptic still participating in this thread, and I ain't getting paid. (Most others of my opinions seem to have left for more hospitable climes). And while I may have a limited perspective on the matter, I think this thread is one of the most important centers of mindshare in Bitcoindom. You'd think that if there were expenditures on shillery, this thread would be one of the major targets.

*whether BTC or BCH

Incidentally, the Bitcoin network topology is nothing like the diagram on the right.

Haha. I know you're just trolling me, but I'll play along.

Don't know. Don't even know if it will. I think it will, due to the support of way more use cases at minimal complexity. But that's a future unknown to us as of yet.

Yes. Because the alternative scenario is letting my current net worth double. Again.

Can't win if you forfeit the game.

Never. Same hash algo. They can instantly retarget their hashpower to whatever garners them profit. As some miners abandon BCH (as if -- who is it misguided BTC maximalists insist is the primary driving force behind BCH?), it becomes more profitable for those that remain. And unlike BTC, BCH can ratchet down its difficulty to ensure stability under any circumstance.

kampai!

When you have 100K saved, you still need to work. Going down to 10K doesn't change that fact.

OTOH, 10M is a safe retirement range. Dropping to 1M means ya gotta go back to work. At least 'round these parts. Big change.

Chartbuddy's creator was burned at the stake, accused of heresy. Though he escaped with his life, and continues tracking the markets for all to see in a more hospitable environment.

Bearish? I'm being typecast!

Too bad, so sad.

Can it go down further? Perhaps. Will it? Maybe. But sure as shit, it'll come roaring back, and you'll be out in the cold.

Hell, we were at this level just two months ago. Grow some stones, ninnies.