...and they had to rely on the Core developers to point out the serious flaws in their design.


Yep.



The Bitcoin developers have made IBD and block propagation improvements, and released them in 0.14. Maybe BU do have unreleased ideas that they've not announced yet, guess who else with a larger team, who've proven to be consistently more competent team, also has the same


Where are the BU privacy solutions, like Confidential Transaction or Mimblewimble? Where are the new more efficient tx encoding formats? The reason BU does zero development along those lines is that they're entirely focused on creating the most disruption to the Bitcoin ecosystem as possible, not on improving it at all. It's literally trolling software, made for the sole purpose of trolling the Bitcoin network, and is unsurprisingly promoted using actual internet trolls using trolling tactics

The market already chooses, just without an algorithm governing the so-called "choice"


All the algorithmic re-sizing proposals come with a cap anyway. Hence, they're waste of time; it's far easier just to use the cap and allow actual market driven dynamics choose how much of that space to fill, algorithmic resizing simply creates soft limits to stymie market dynamics from actually determining the blocksize


Can you reply without making it inpenetrably overlong, please

Ambiguity is not your friend when it comes to these things, look before you leap

Lauda, what is it that you think you're saying to me, hmmmmmmmmm?


You're going a bit weird, you've accepted in the past the fact that on-chain scaling is not possible, it's the same scale with bigger components, hence why it breaks down the further the network heads in that direction

Are you now really pretending that you no longer accept that blocksize increases are a non-solution, and that 12 MB blocks in a few years is a sensible way forward? Are you using the same schoolyard logically subversive tactics as Frankie and jonald, and impugning those who won't get on board?

Everyone including me, already 2 people have highlighted several implications of Segwit of which I was previously unaware


I understand why algorithmic/dynamic resizing is compelling, I initially thought such a system would be the eventual solution.

But the more I've thought and read about the proposals, it seems like opening a fresh can of worms that in fact changes the outcome of blocksize solutions very little (in practice, it may be worse than a static limit, or a static limit with step changes)


I'm trying to look at the significance of Segwit as objectively as I can. It seems to me that people are beginning to simplify the meaning of the actual word "Segwit" such that it means only "the team of neckbeards who have political affiliation to the Blockstream corporation, and also so happen to want 4MB blocks because they hate everyone and everything else".

The real definition of Segwit literally is the Segwit code, and the effects that the acitvated Segwit code paths confer to the Bitcoin network, and in turn to the overall Bitcoin ecosystem. In other words, Segwit is objectively the right change at the right point in Bitcoin's development, it's aggregate effects (and it's necessary method of deployment) are precisely what prove and define it, it is objectively the change that will meet the objectives of Bitcoin's continued evolution as a free-market, censorship resistant, ubiquitous money.

There is, and cannot be by definition, "something else in the pipeline". I feel it's a little like saying "this round thing is the wrong shape for a wheel, surely we can refine it so it rolls even better before we fit it to the axles"


Yes, you're seeing the awkward reality of on-chain scaling; the additional blockspace resource gives the user equally increased ability to both co-operate, or disrupt. The power to create and the power to destroy.

As regards setting a transaction fee limit, this exists in several manifestations already. If you run a full Bitcoin node, you can configure which transactions your node relays to others depending on the fee each transaction pays. Many don't configure this option. I often raise my minimum relay fee above the default value, although not now I'm using Bitcoin 0.14, which increased the previous default to a higher value than my preferred settings (I have accepted the default value in 0.14 for now)


I wasn't aware of this benefit, or at least I didn't think I was. Do you mean that the signing process was encumbered with the block validation process, due to the way the original consensus code was defined? Enlighten us



@gmaxwell

I would include you in this post if you hadn't spammed my thread with your overwrought & unnecessarily esoteric math & logic (JOKE ALERT). I'll respond a little later, I may just read it all a 3rd time before I do.

Accept my apologies if I seem alarmist in the OP and/or thread title; in hindsight, I could be a little clearer in representing what I'm actually thinking in contrast to the impression one may get from the OP, and the thread title was designed to be attention grabbing and/or rhetorical.

Kano, you're a waste of disk space



The nested P2WPKH & P2WSH address types are, of course, inherently bigger

But the native forms won't be. You know this, and yet choose to lie by omission


People shouldn't trust someone as dishonest as you with anything, especially not their pool earnings

Something that just occurred to me

Is it not the case that "native" (i.e. not nested P2SH) P2WPKH and P2WSH address formats will appear subsequent to Segwit activation? And I say "appear", as they're AFAIA unspecified at this point.

Any reasonable expectation that the un-nested Witness address specifications will be available to implement before 0.97? Surely the wallet format needs to be change to incorporate them, although presumably not the signer? Will the wallet format actually stabilise at 97.1 or 0.98, in other words?

You're trying to say

"this double spend attempt failed, therefore it succeeded!"

Which is why you're attracting derision


Shut up

You've changed your tune

Explain how Segwit makes "everything" worse

David Rabahy's had this demonstrated to him in the past, and still behaves as if he doesn't understand this blindingly obvious "subtlety".



David, do people actually take investment advice from you? On Bitcoin? They are incredibly unwise to take advice from a financial adviser one who states

"I'm lazy and don't want to have to do anything"

And you're another one who does far too much self-important talking to say that with a straight face


If no-one cares about what people say here, then why are you permanently here talking your subversive lying rhetoric

The steps come in an order, Lauda. The 1st step, bizarrely, comes first.

There's little point in talking about the subsequent steps, if the 1st step is a significant problem in it's own right

Any possibility of you abiding by your own maxim? i.e. shut your mouth jonald, no-one cares what comes out

It can be seriously abused at Step 1 Lauda, the yearly maximums are a part of the steps subsequent to Step 1

Isn't this the one where the author says in the BIP

"encoding transactions using XML with super short field names is THE most efficient data encoding possible, I mean, you can't make ANY data smaller than 1 character in text file, am-I-right?!"


I literally pissed myself laughing

Nope. Entirely unacceptable, all of that will be abused in seven ways from Sunday

If only Franky could use the word so that it actually means consensus, instead of constantly repeating-repeating-repeating what he wishes it means

(Franky tells us 50x times daily that consensus is where everyone disagrees on something   )

I'm a dwarf too, in case you weren't aware

Take a bow Dwarf, it's your post that inspired me to make this thread