The important vision is ubiquity of Bitcoin. As for me, I am working toward that vision.


Obviously not. It would take about 280 days to make 70 million transactions on today's Bitcoin Core. Over a month on Bitcoin Cash, which is still too long, but nearly an order of magnitude better. Because big blocks.

Haha. As if on cue - some info & help, packaged as dickish trolling. Thanks.

Incidentally, not the last of my dry powder by any means. I expect further pivoting out of BCH into BTC as the next fork approacheth. Out of alts too, FWIW. Unclear when and where the inflection point to positive will occur. I've still a magazine with which to buy on its way down.


Well, yeah. If you present for payment an address which you have no way of redeeming, you're gonna have a bad time. Kind of fundamental concept there.

I don't mean to make light of the issue. Real people are losing real money. But the means to avoid this is fully in their hands.


Fair enough. Their project, their decision.

...aaand you're back to your personally-comfortable position of ascribing to others motivations that are not only completely wrong, but also utterly unknowable by you anyhow. Rather than employ reason against my assertions. This is what substitutes for logic in the JJG world. So much easier than defending your pronouncements, isn't it?

My statements about the time it would take to onboard the world at 1MB are clear above. If you want to tell me they are incorrect, then show me where I am wrong. Or are you incapable of the elementary arithmetic required to do the calculation yourself? Need handholding?

I am discussing Bitcoin. I am discussing Bitcoin Segwit Core, Bitcoin Segwit 2M, and Bitcoin Cash.

Life is a game of probabilities. While I am confident that BCH will eventually be recognized as the One True Bitcoin, only a fool would ascribe 100% to any such outcome. As such, if there is a case for improving Segwit, I am going to make it.

I am decidedly not a troll. Are you a troll? Is Segwit Core 'what you wanted'? Then why do you return to this sub forum?

Yes, we all (most) probably know what Bitcoin is. I doubt, however, that everyone here was complicit with you appointing yourself arbiter as to what may or may not witness being discussed here.

Regardless, it is quite clear that at least some have not yet heard the fact that onboarding the world will take decades at 1MB, and that neither segwit nor LN ameliorates this issue, while block size increases do. If you really want to wallow in willful ignorance, feel free to ignore me. I'd be a little sad -- I seem to remember us having cordial conversations in the past -- but I'd live.

I wouldn't say so, no. LN is complementary to blocksize increase. Of course, it is a different transaction model and a different security model. We won't know for some time all the implications of these aspects. But no - there seem to be clear valid use cases for off-chain transactions through payment channels.

What the fuck is YOUR problem? This is where we discuss Bitcoin and all its aspects. Did I gore your sacred cow or somethin'?

I'm not 'trying to change Bitcoin into BCH'. Today I reinvested in my reasoning that BCH will eventually be seen as the One True Bitcoin. I'm trying to get people to see that Segwit Core has usurped the Bitcoin mantle. And hopefully save them some tears in the process.

No. Lightning does absolutely nothing to alleviate the issue I raise.

Incidentally: you doubt my facts are accurate? That's supposed to convince anyone? What are you - eight years old? They're accurate within engineering tolerance. Run 'em yourself and tell me what sort of numbers you come up with. Only then will we have a basis for communication.


Irrelevant. It is true whether or not I say it.


No. I speak of facts. If you wish to argue that my purported facts are incorrect, then provide evidence. If you wish to argue that my reasoning is flawed, then provide evidence. But jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you' doesn't make you right, it just makes you deaf to reason.

Makes you look stupid, too.

I was just correcting a flawed assertion by JJG. After the predictable pile-on, this is where we arrive. The only _problem_ per se was the insistence that larger blocks serve no purpose - where demonstrably, they do.

Well, iCEBREAKER, you are an inveterate dickish troll. But I also know you to be seemingly quite intelligent and knowledgable. So with that as a preface, I am going to ask...

This is the first I have heard about some flaw in Bitcoin Cash's address format. Where can I find a factual description thereof?

I've been around the incessant march of technology long enough to know the it will indeed solve the issue in the long term. There may be some points where demand outstrips technical limits. But now is not such a time, and neither is the long term. LN may be am important component of the ultimate solution set. But it is in no way sufficient. There is no technology proposed that eliminates this fundamental bottleneck. Block size needs to be increased. Period.


No. It absolutely does not. You are not yet processing what I wrote. For a person who does not yet have Bitcoin, at least two on-chain transactions are required. One to get Bitcoin into his possession, and another to make his one and only lifetime channel funding (how likely is this limit?). Now, it is possible -- however implausible -- that the initial purchase of Bitcoin might be combined with others in a single transaction that can take advantage of Segwit. However, it is impossible for his channel funding transaction to be reduced in block consumption via segwit. The smallest it can be is one input and one output. So that latter set of transactions (the channel fundings) is a minimum of 30 years at 1MB. Plus whatever it takes to get the Bitcoin into peoples hands to begin with (another 30 years in the natural transaction/person case).

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Did you:
a) not read what I wrote; or
b) end up being incapable of understanding it?

So you're happy with a limit of getting 2% of the population onto LN per year, with no bandwidth left for any other other transactions (like, maybe, to rescind a cheating LN transaction by your channel counterparty trying to steal your funds)?

Fine. In the boxes next to your name, I'll check the 1MB4EVAH column.

Have you read what I wrote above? A person who does not yet have Bitcoin cannot use LN. He must first get Bitcoin via an on-chain transaction. So the absolute theoretical minimum number of on-chain transactions required per person is two - one to get Bitcoin, and the other to spend every Bitcoin he will ever own into a single LN channel. In this minimal limit, it would require -- at 1MB -- 60 years for every person on earth to be able to participate.

Accordingly, no. While LN might become an important adjunct, the most important dimension to work on is simple block size.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago?  

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg22571392#msg22571392

Incidentally, I have kept dry powder that I am now using to BTF'nD. Fundamentals are still aligned. BCH is the rightful ultimate heir. This will become even more clear after the S1X vs S2X circular firing squad.

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

Bullshit. The vision is the entire world employing Bitcoin. How are we going to get there? Nobody can spend Bitcoin if they don't already have Bitcoin. Have you thought about the limit of adoption even assuming the desire was there? How long will it take to onboard the world?

Currently it would take over 30 years to send each person on earth a single Bitcoin transaction. Think about that.

Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.

The only metric that matters in this is transaction throughput - pure and simple. To a first order approximation (i.e. with already minimal-size transactions), this is directly and linearly proportional to block size.

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that can possibly get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Most likely. There are two separate beliefs that could lead to this:
1) the belief that 2MB is good enough, thereby reducing the advantage of 8MB; and
2) the belief that the sum of the value of S1X and the value of S2X at time = t0+ will be greater than that of the SonlyX at t=0- (much like the BCH split resulted previously in a larger aggregate value).

---

I doubt it, but I must admit it is plausible.