Do you mean that 0.96 connects the DB to the wallet without server=1 ? What sorcery is this?

No.

Your logic is entirely wrong. LN aggregates multiple transactions together. Assuming that your "daddy chain interaction" description is valid (it's not), channels need 2 on-chain transactions, 1 for opening, 1 for closing. Simple arithmetic should be telling you that so long as you make 3 or more transactions before closing the channel, that's one less transaction than would have ended up on-chain. So it frees up space on-chain, and so does not take space away from it.


And you're even more wrong than you realise: the closing part may never need happen. The channel concept is flexible enough to allow the aggregated transactions to flow from one channel into a different channel.

In practice, this means that the more people on Lightning, the better connected they are to each other, no different to the internet itself or the regular Bitcoin network. As long as everyone co-operates (which is a big if of course), then BTC moved over Lightning can keep circulating through the Lightning Network forever.

Because of the necessity of good behaviour to allow that perpetuity, I think it's more likely to be used between people that trust each other strongly, and one's regular IRL brick & mortar stores are the best fit (they're not going anywhere fast, and need to uphold a good reputation as a result). Also, Lightning transactions defy the confirmation concept, because they're not waiting to be confirmed in a block. And instant clearing is exactly what bricks & mortar retailers want.

Ok, I think I see what's leading you to say this.


To begin with, remember that BU is explictly defined as a hard fork. Naming no names, but there are some excessively over-complicated descriptions of the difference between the two. But there are nuanced sub-categories of each type, so there is some grounding in reality to presenting every subcategory at once (but it's more confusing presented that way).

It's clearer like this:


The 2 overall categories: hard and soft

Hard fork: the blockchain splits in 2

1 Rule or more are either changed, or removed. The implications are that those running the previous versions of the Bitcoin software detect the new and different version, but refuse to accept the new version of the blockchain, because the new blocks allow actions that were not in the previously rules. That's why it's described as "hard", it's an all or nothing change, as a user, you're forced to choose one or the other, because you cannot choose both.

Soft fork: the blockchain remains as 1

All the previous rules are maintained and respected by the newer Bitcoin software. The difference is that extra rules (that don't contradict the old in any way) are added to the new software. Bitcoin was designed specifically to let this happen smoothly, so that when previous versions encounter blocks that observe new rules they do not have the code with which to understand or apply, there is a predefined way for those older version of Bitcoin to safely ignore the new rules (how could the old software interpret newer code that was written in the future?). So, the implications here are the opposite to hard forks: people running the old version don't have to choose between 2 blockchains, they can stay on the same chain as the newer Bitcoin software, ignoring the new rules while still observing the old rules.


With that out of the way, it should be clearer why it's not that likely that the 3 chain forks you suggested would happen, or, at least the way things are now. For your scenario to happen, either Bitcoin "As is" must do a hard fork from Bitcoin "Segwit", or the other way round. Because there is no proposal like that right now (or at least not with any meaningful support), it's far more likely that only one out of 1) and 2) would take place, not both.

And your final question, I hope, should be inherently easy to answer for yourself now: because BU makes changes to pre-existing rules, it is a hard fork by definition. BU must fork into a separate change to allow BU's changes to be expressed in blocks, because older nodes will reject BU blocks as they break the previous rules in Bitcoin.

What makes you think the users aren't represented in the debate? Why wouldn't the users be interested in expressing their thoughts and attitudes, when the value of their BTC assets are at stake?

This is a bizarre distinction you're creating, as if none of the people debating have anything at stake (BTC assets or otherwise).

Will you explain why you think 1 will happen? I am non-plussed
 


Ethereum is not a good crypto to my mind. PoS is just not viable incentive wise, and the overall design of Ethereum is flawed in many other ways.



I wouldn't recommend that, cryptocurrency is too significant an innovation to abandon outright. Keep some small amount of whatever makes you feel most comfortable, or better yet, do as you're doing and continue to learn through reading and asking questions, anyone can become more confident in what to invest in with enough study.



You don't need to do anything, that's the safest option. As Angry Dwarf says, you can hedge with very simple set of steps, bear in mind you'll need double the hard disk space to run that configuration (for both the BTC chain and the BTU chain)


A recent announcement by 12 or so major exchanges has taken alot of the uncertainty out of a potential BU hard fork.

They have agreed between them to refuse to list BTU if the BU development team don't change their code to prevent replay attacks. This is highly disruptive attack, enabled by unwillingness to alter BU sufficiently from Bitcoin that the attack is impossible. The attack allows the malicious party to -

• monitor the 2 blockchains
• copy transactions from one of either forked chain (which are of course free for all to see)
• send the same transaction on the chain the original was not sent on

All the attacker gains is annoying those who get attacked, they can't steal for themselves. They're just moving the coins against your will, simply because they have everything they need (a signed transaction) to playback the same transaction on the other blockchain. But if you were sending the money to an address not in your node's wallet (an exchange address being the obvious example), there is a risk that you wouldn't be able to get your coins either. So it's pretty damn serious overall.


Because of this statement from the (major) exchanges, BU now basically have no choice but to fix the attack vector, as the exchanges couldn't list BTU in good conscience knowing the serious losses or uncertainty this could otherwise have caused. So they've done us all a favour, and the ball is in BU's court. I expect they'll fix it.

Indeed.

The diversity you're seeking is to be found in the other cryptocurrencies on the market.

This observation lies behind my objection to all the competing Bitcoin dev teams; the cryptocurrency marketplace is where the competition of ideas can legitimately and productively take place, not within Bitcoin's development itself, where it's obvious that only one development team can be in charge at any one time. Hence the fierce debate.

If a modification of the Bitcoin client is not accepted by the team of coders doing Bitcoin development, it can compete on it's own merits as a separate cryptocurrency. All competing Bitcoin development ideas (XT, Classic etc) always took the line that Bitcoin must be their vision, and that they must depose the "negligent" or "corrupt" etc incumbent team with a hard fork.

I agree with you. I don't expect you to continue to be reasonable, but I suppose I will try.

Do not exaggerate my position,  sidestep, divert, answer questions with unrelated questions, or use non pertinent slander. Not that it should need saying


So, I agree. But you're starting by implying that I want 100% offchain transaction, with only channel opening tx's for fees. I've never said any such thing, and so your dangerously close to behaving in bad faith already.



You're right. Again, you're implicitly suggesting that's what I want; it isn't. Careful.


There is a balance to be struck between on-chain and off-chain, this is correct. That's what we're really arguing about, so it's good that someone has outlined it (and no, not you, me. This is the first time you've even gone near talking about the overall long term of late, and it's me that's summed that up in simple terms here)




You're still having this problem. I've never once said that on-chain should be ruled out.

I have said that on-chain scaling and blocksize increases do not correspond to one another, at all.


Read my lips: increasing the blocksize does not change the scale, it adds more resource usage at precisely the same scale. Stop arguing that blocksize increases are on-chain scaling, it's very very simple logic that blocksize changes are resource increases, not scaling increases.


Do not make me repeat this to you, I am fully expecting you to exploit the subtlety between adding resources and increasing scaling


And so my argument is simple: there are ways to scale on-chain. Let's do those, and achieve a sustainable balance between on-chain and off-chain transactions that has provable longevity. Any problems?

You forgot to subtract all the LoC that are adapted or new testing code They form most of the changes, i.e. the Bitcoin devs are being as assiduously diligent as possible.

You also forgot to mention how many bugs have been found and fixed (having not caused any incident, as you'd be shouting about it from the roof of your tower block) on the Bitcoin Testnet, which has been running live Segwit for over 6 months

Coinbase are a conspicuous absence on the list. Who else is missing?

Where are your technical arguments?


If I'm so lacking in value as a source of truth, why do you need to attack nothing but my character? Why do you need to attack at all, surely I'm ssssssso transparent that anyone can see it without your "help"?


You can't make any actual arguments, or defend your own nonsense, and so you must attack nothing but me.

Let's see what people really think (and oh look, no-one's interested in reckless blocksize hard-forks, as usual)

You know you're getting the balance wrong when you're unable to discuss the issues directly, and need to dog-pile your way to a back-slapping false victory.


You've got no proper technical arguments, just like the rest of your buddies. I don't need hype men on the other mics to back up my choruses, because the lines are right

I'll attack the ideas and rhetoric of ANYONE who wants to do something dangerous, particularly people who consistently evade answering the difficult and pertinent questions about their dangerous ideas.


You've got nothing but name-calling smears and playground tactics, just like every other dishonest debater haunting Bitcoin

That's correct.

d5000, you have the same problem as all dishonest debaters trying to throw up smokescreens and diversions to cover their tracks:


People only need to read the posts to see that you were being evasive and squirming, and I was being direct and clearly replying to you. All anyone has to do is read, to see you're the one using dishonest playground tactics. You will be exposed again and again, if you continue in this way. You can't convince people with dishonesty.



It's pretty extremist to want to do something extremely stupid in the light of contrary evidence if you ask me.

There is one situation in particular where I reserve the right to be belligerent; when people are doing something dangerous

.

Play the ball, not the man. Any personal criticism coming from me relates specifically to your behaviour in this thread, not wholesale attacks on character.


And you STILL have yet to provide actual reasoning for your x=y linear blocksize growth proposal, you still have yet to provide logical refutations to my insistence that blocksize should be the last resort, not the first.

You're the bad actor here, you cannot accept that you are wrong, and have only unbacked assertions to prosecute your position, what you're suggesting is bad engineering practice, and actual engineers know this full well. You have presented zero evidence to the contrary, and are only continuing because your pride is hurt, otherwise you would accept reasonable reasoning. Instead you try to discuss anything but the points I have raised.

You're campaigning on blocksize for it's own sake only, deaf and blind to any alternative, which exist. You are the bad actor, the poor debater, the intransigent. To attack me because of your own panoply of short comings is a total disgrace, you have no place debating any technical matters whatsoever.

They have, they've done a BU BIP for it in the last few days. But what's the point of even bringing it up, BU promoters have been deriding Segwit so heavily for so long, they'd look desperate and hyprocritical if it were accepted into BU now.

How could they say "oh well, majority has spoken I suppose" when the actual majority has been running Segwit clients for a month or more now (currently Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network)

Right, but the front end and the back end talk to each other. I guess it's a question of which you prefer, taking the time to change the code, or fielding alot of users getting the same problem in the subforum.

If even droark isn't clued in enough to picked it up straight away, I'd predict ~ 75% of users will be wailing about it without checking the pre-existing 12+ frontpage threads here describing the same issue.

Every single one of you is making the same mistake as the OP.


There is mining cartel right now, and it's not ideal. But this could last less than 5 years, technology doesn't stand still, and neither do the tools that are used to create technology.

If you want to sell your doomed-to-centralisation-forever BTC, I'M BUYING


So either sell, or start thinking with your brains instead of with your fear reflex. But I predict you'll all be here tomorrow, next week and next year, complaining about something else (and still HODL'ing)

You're being very fatalistic. There is no reason to expect 3D processor printing not to happen, and there is no reason not to expect regular people to be incentivised to use it for SHA256 ASICs.

The mathematics that determines the number of viable pools or solo miners doesn't change as difficulty increases. You're basically making the "snapshot" fallacy; just because there are ~ 20 mining pools at this specific point in time, does not mean that number of pools is deterministic according to Bitcoin's design.


Difficulty increases linearly with hashrate, you're been drinking the FUD-Aid, it appears.


Edit ....and you're just repeating what has already been demonstrated false. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

One could make the argument that technological development is the real impediment to decentralising mining, as until we have 3D printing of ASIC processors, the manufacturers of SHA256 ASICs can (as an effective cartel) gouge the market price they set to independent miners in order to corner the mining market.

It's a good thing then that 3D printed computer processors is desirable for that reason as well as so many others. Someone will innovate that.


Meanwhile, your hands are waving very fast; the amount of mining pools is higher than your upper bound of 20. And you're making a real confusion of the expression "witness", every full node is a witness, they all check signatures

(I can already hear the trolls retorts: "ZOMG, Segwit lets people choose to prune signatures from their full node, Segwit is a Delegated PoW takeover! YOINKS!")