Here's how.
 
Segregated witness does not need to increase the tps, you've already heard my attitude to that. In it's own right, segwit simply segregates the signatures into a separate, parallel block structure.

Further, segwit isn't a change. It's an addition.

And the answer is that there is no need, the protocol additions to enable 2nd layers have already been activated on the network. Burt alludes to further additions to the protocol that would improve the efficiency of 2nd layers.

The Lightning Network is a ledger in it's own right, as are all promissory note systems. The difference in Lightning's system of promissory notes is that the promissory notes cannot be counterfeited, the on-chain transaction needed to open the channel ensures that.

Relax those trouser creases, it was a joke I agree, you're presenting us with difficult subject matter. Nothing like a challenge IMO. As you were

Segwit compatible nodes are 51% of the network. And rising every day. If that's the majority of users rejecting it, I don't know what would convince you. 101% segwit nodes, maybe?


Bitcoin nodes are ~ 6000. And rising every day. You're in favour of changes that endanger that trend.


Which part of "anyone can start a p2p Lightning node" don't you understand?

Don't expect a Franky to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it

It doesn't.

It solves the problem of ASIC manufacturers taking advantage of the market. The development and production of ASIC chips is highly privileged endeavor; engineering talent available to design the chip is very scarce as well as expensive, and access to chip fabrication plants is also scarce and expensive. Not to mention, the number of chips produced in a minimum sized batch would need that big building to house the miners; a significant barrier to entry.

My proposal (really Meni Rosenfeld's broad proposal) would let people mine with CPU's or GPU/FPGA's again. It wouldn't prevent mining warehouses, but it would change the balance of opportunity so that small miners can participate with a similar barrier to entry as big miners.

No. How about this argument: we already have a stable metric for value, the joule.

Strange.

Why would the largest miner on the network be stifling the capacity we already have? The owner of AntMiner claims to support the on-chain transaction model. This news seems to contradict that position.

I accept it. I don't accept it is as serious a problem as you present, for the reasons I stated. Rationally.


Nowhere did I state that fixed supply money was either stable in value, or ideal. You said that on my behalf.

Yes.

Routing through others connected to your LN node is part of what makes Lightning attractive, a high quality of privacy can be established that way (better than on-chain Bitcoin, only the parties directly connected to you are aware of your transactions, unlike when published on the public blockchain)

They don't have to be permanently online necessarily, but it's ideal if they are. There is at least one way to exploit channels to steal from others when one party goes offline, but not if they stay online. This is a significant flaw IMO, but it's not impossible that a p2p solution could be found for this also (a 3rd party solution has been devised). It's all still a work in progress.

This is where I part company with the logic expressed by the OP.

Dynamic Keynsian money supplies are only ideal for one part of the economy: producers. And the only reason for that is to maintain a profitable business for those producers, but that paradigm is diminishing increasingly rapidly, and may well disappear altogether before the 21st century finishes.

And it also ignores the fact that there are multiple established ways for producers to mitigate this risk (deflationary losses). This should be sefl-evident without any need for details; the world economy expanded consistently over the long term, despite deflationary money being more popular prior to the 20th century. The world couldn't have experienced a long term economic uptrend if it wasn't possible to handle the problems of deflation.

BU facilitates breaking consensus, not enforcing it. That's the whole point of BU.

No-one will be able to trust the validity of on-chain transactions, as BU can fork or reorg itself unexpectedly at any time. The ability to alter the consensus rules on the fly turns forks and re-orgs into a feature, when they're highly undesirable for a stable uniform blockchain.

No.

The 2015 agreement said nothing of the sort. The agreement was to implement Segwit first, then expand to 2MB base later. Nothing about dynamic sizing was part of it, that claim has been invented out of thin air.

Google Press Office didn't check with the engineers: SHA-1 or SHA256 are not encryption ciphers.

The SHA family are hashing algorithms. There is no encryption in Bitcoin (until BIP 151 is implemented)

Lightning is peer to peer in essence. That means there is no hub/node distinction, everyone is a node, anyone can start a node.

Sure, some nodes will be more popular than others, but everyone can decide for themselves whether to use a cheap high volume channel (suitable when you don't care about privacy), or a more expensive low volume channel (suitable for privacy sensitive payments), or anything in between as you choose.

The main point is that because Lightning is p2p, it's a platform for a diversity of needs. Choose your own compromise/trade-off.

There are multiple implementations of LN in ongoing development, 5 the last time I checked. Blockstream are only 1 of that 5.

You cannot qualify your statement that 5+ organisations developing their own form of Lightning protocol is a risk to Bitcoin.

The truth is the opposite: healthy competition in LN implementations can only help to improve Bitcoin's transaction capacity by orders of magnitude higher than any workable blocksize increase ever could, and provide strength in diversity should one of the many designs develops a problem.

Just like the rest of your ilk, you're still obsessed with individuals (mostly me) and personalities, incapable of arguing straightly or honestly about technical points.


You're wrong, that little exchange between d5000 and Boussac was not clear at all. I provided clarity.


Is there something wrong with the content of what I said? There is not, which is why, ironically, you can only attack my character. Who's the real troll

Possibly this issue is known/WIP also....

• Click Receive Coins
• Click Address Type
• Select and apply Compressed nested P2SH key

QR code & text remains the P2PKH address. Instead of generating one P2PKH, 100 addresses are generated/displayed, and no compressed P2SH addresses at all.


Edit(Edit): A 2nd attempt at creating a compressed nested P2SH worked The compressed P2SH nested keys only appear in Wallet Properties after closing and reopening it (Wallet Properties dialog)

FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting.


Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead.

If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful.