http://bitsonline.com/craig-wright-threatens-bitcoin/Backed by the Bitmain/Bitcoin Unlimited cartel, Wright appears to be going off the deep end. Note that all the bad actors appear to be joining together: 1. Wright's nChain, which is attempting to flood patent offices with a Johnny-come-lately barrage of crypto patents. 2. Jihan Wu of Bitmain, the monopolistic miner/manufacturer that gave us ASICBoost and Antbleed. 3. Roger Ver of Bitcoin.com and r/btc, Bitcoin Unlimited infamy. The Powers That Be are mad because they tried to put Craig Wright as the leader of Bitcoin, but they didn't manage to fool the Core devs. Greg Maxwell and Luke caught Craig Wright lies and ridiculed his nonsense. Gavin got exposed as either an idiot or part of the Craig-Jihad-Ver camp. Their anti-small-node agenda to centralize bitcoin is very clear and they are losing the battle so they are on desperation mode. You're either very very confused or pushing lies on purpose. I knew it was you before reading your nickname. It's obvious what's going on, if you can't see it, you are either dumb or you are under Roger's paycheck. Sorry, we are not buying. The anti-fullnode camp will never win. They are the biggest enemies of Bitcoin. No matter how much you don't like Blockstream, that's nothing compared to the anti-fullnode camp. The "everyone needs a full node on a raspberry pie" lie you preach is working to push the agenda that's destroying bitcoin. To the contrary: It's the big blockers that will kill bitcoin, by giving up the network to corporations that can be easily located and manipulated by governments and global attackers. People that think giving the power of nodes to corporations are either retards or have agendas that align with said corporations. Why just corporations? Why not all strong individuals that have wealth ( in bitcoin ) and high interest to keep things up? How many do you estimate are all these on the planet? Think big or loose that game. Individuals with big wealth in bitcoin like Roger Ver? oh, I see his clear interest in keeping bitcoin decentralized, except he wants to turn it into paypal 2.0: https://coinjournal.net/roger-ver-paypal-acceptable-risk-bitcoin/Roger Ver is an idiot, having a lot of wealth means nothing. We need to keep the nodes in the hands of the people to keep the network decentralized and safe, period. If you only can think of a central person, you might decentralize your thinking,too. The internet is your friend... |
|
|
|
Jon Matonis already verified his stance that Craig Wright is Satoshi ,this is the blog he wrote confirming how he could provide the proof that is needed, unless he could prove the doubts of the entire world by signing and proving who he really is,no one will believe his claims. I am always impressed with CW about his knowledge and all of his visions , but all of his rants are targeted at Maxwell .  Actuall, I really don't care about personal stuff and cults if or not he is Satoshi and how he proof and to whom. This might be all very human and erratic. I rather care if anyone acts like Satoshi and wants to rule by markets and solution. I m exited to see things coming up here and make bitcoin BIG. If I was not that stupid as I normally are, I wd know how I could help....  |
|
|
|
http://bitsonline.com/craig-wright-threatens-bitcoin/Backed by the Bitmain/Bitcoin Unlimited cartel, Wright appears to be going off the deep end. Note that all the bad actors appear to be joining together: 1. Wright's nChain, which is attempting to flood patent offices with a Johnny-come-lately barrage of crypto patents. 2. Jihan Wu of Bitmain, the monopolistic miner/manufacturer that gave us ASICBoost and Antbleed. 3. Roger Ver of Bitcoin.com and r/btc, Bitcoin Unlimited infamy. The Powers That Be are mad because they tried to put Craig Wright as the leader of Bitcoin, but they didn't manage to fool the Core devs. Greg Maxwell and Luke caught Craig Wright lies and ridiculed his nonsense. Gavin got exposed as either an idiot or part of the Craig-Jihad-Ver camp. Their anti-small-node agenda to centralize bitcoin is very clear and they are losing the battle so they are on desperation mode. You're either very very confused or pushing lies on purpose. I knew it was you before reading your nickname. It's obvious what's going on, if you can't see it, you are either dumb or you are under Roger's paycheck. Sorry, we are not buying. The anti-fullnode camp will never win. They are the biggest enemies of Bitcoin. No matter how much you don't like Blockstream, that's nothing compared to the anti-fullnode camp. The "everyone needs a full node on a raspberry pie" lie you preach is working to push the agenda that's destroying bitcoin. To the contrary: It's the big blockers that will kill bitcoin, by giving up the network to corporations that can be easily located and manipulated by governments and global attackers. People that think giving the power of nodes to corporations are either retards or have agendas that align with said corporations. Why just corporations? Why not all strong individuals that have wealth ( in bitcoin ) and high interest to keep things up? How many do you estimate are all these on the planet? Think big or loose that game. |
|
|
|
I would say it's probably the most difficult job in software development.
Not only do you need to understand the language (predominately c++), you also need a deep understanding of networking, peer to peer applications, finance, cryptography (which is huge and complex in itself) and last but by a long shot the most important, you need to understand consensus design, for which there is no manual and no books cover the subject, because it is bleeding edge technology.
And not forget about economics / incentifying since you could safe a lot of coding and crypto when you have a strong idea what folks would attack and where they collude. |
|
|
|
Check this video at 3:09 LN is a Mesh with 80 Hubs. always attackable. Anyone get this explained? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1997310.0And yes, if you do not concentrate to on chain scaling, you allow starting that less secure crap around, weakening bitcoin network security... |
|
|
|
The problem isn't off chain per se, its cripping on chain and not letting it compete fairly with off chain which is what Blockstream is doing. Let the market decide.
Point taken. What I mean by institutions: If base blockchain becomes very expensive (and assuming that everyone just doesnt leave to use altcoins) then what bitcoin will become is
only big players (exchanges, banks, brokerages, etc) transacting with each other and users being forced to use the services that run on top of them, since no one will pay
$100+ just for a tx.
Thank you for elaborating! I argue that despite the monetary overhead needed also regular users would be able to act as LN hubs. You're assuming that everyone needs to have 100% of their funds to be liquid all the time. Let's not forget that there's a lot of early adopters that have more Bitcoins at their hands than they would need for their monthly expenses. Regarding the avoidance of institutional actors, wealth disparity may actually work in favour of LN. And the big shit is that BScore wants to do this wrong order. I m happy to have such channels later when on chain scaling , the most secure thing ever, is maximized. Also miners want that first because with LN firsst they have to share fees and miners are one of the biggest users as well... |
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/YAcOnvOVquoi had to see this twice now but i take a 3 rd view for sure. 2:22 Starts I see a settled Matonis I see a nervous Wright He s getting in rage about scaling and governance He shows lots of insight and data ( will be distributed by Matonis) from the beginning and code pieces and annekdotes. Smart contracts, B2B, 0 conf tx,... He will offer some solutios and let the market decide to choose. He will run a pool to enforce his solutions. He answers QA and gives a hint why Satoshi Nakamoto is 'Japanese' and Nakamoto was taken from a Japanese Economist who tried colluding with the Western world. http://ajaigaur.weebly.com/uploads/6/7/3/7/6737815/delios_gaur__makino_jms_2008.pdfP. 11 = 179 ?? Finally i can only say these guys know a lot and want to make bitcoin great again.recommendet! I personally can distinguish beween emotion and calculus. So i m happy to see what comes next and I like to see a proper human discussion from my bitcoin community down here. Take a stepp back, whatch the video 2 times and post analytcally... Cheers Edit: I also beleive, if bitcoin should succeed, we have to think big and invite all big to join. Who wants to stay nichy?
|
|
|
|
Sh..t. If SW runs I would miss much more... |
|
|
|
Every day i hear something from Craig Wright, i really want block split to happen to see which scaling solution actually can solve bitcoin problem rather than hear people claim their scaling solution is the best solution. Has anyone proper data that can show how effictive a Raspi node is in reality?
Best on average with many on different locations?
As far as i know, Raspberry PI is doing fine with 1M blocksize, you just need big storage. But few people speculate Raspberry PI will struggle (even the newest type) if blocksize is increased a lot just like what BU wants. The same holds for SW + LN. The RasPI is not the future node at all ( you will not have todays full security with PIs anyway). I was asking for a real tech proof and some stats about the potential connection surface = real power of such a PI. I like the idea that any poor runs one, but I understand that if we want reach high adoption rate, we have enough bigger business hosting a node and the poor can happily safe their Satoshis Not running any node by EXACTLY same Network security, because running a PI node will have same effect than running a CPU miner today. |
|
|
|
Fantastic. He will step up and stop poison segwit and Core from destroying bitcoin. This is great news for bitcoin all around. Very bullish news. Satoshis vision will not be stopped!
Ver bullish.  |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone proper data that can show how effictive a Raspi node is in reality?
Best on average with many on different locations?
|
|
|
|
|
I understood that if any bigger economic user = merchants on the planet runs a full node, all incl me poor are fine.
Sounds good, sounds Satoshi
|
|
|
|
Umf. So if bandwith is cheap why block the on chain scaling then?
Latency. The bigger the blocks compared to the time between blocks, the bigger an issue latency becomes (ie. unless you're close to a large internet backbone your mining operation would run into the risk of orphaned blocks, leading to yet another centralization factor). Do you have any idea how dense the bitcoin network already is? If you d really know, youd claim your post as FUD immediately by yourself... |
|
|
|
I am now convinced that Jon Matonis is convinced that Craig Wright is in fact Satoshi Nakamoto.
I don't care who is or who is not. I m exited and see what solutions will come from any, helping make bitcoin that big that it cannot fail any more. And it was always my speech, it must be on chain first... |
|
|
|
I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now?
I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap...
Bandwidth is as cheap as ever. Even if you can't run it at home you can get virtual private servers with 1TB of bandwidth for as little as USD 5,- / month at digitalocean. Umf. So if bandwith is cheap why block the on chain scaling then? |
|
|
|
In the 2-layer model, the base letter is the settlement layer. The problem is that if you force people not to use that base layer, it doesn't really matter what the layers on top will look like, because institutions become gatekeepers. There are however designs like Drivechains where the "gatekeepers" are the same institution that secures the base layer - miners. In these designs I don't see, for example, possible censorship problems because game theory forces miners to work as expected. In LN, that's a bit different, above all because the operation cost of a LN "hub node" is lower - and so pressure is lower on hub operators to work censorship-free. I sadly have no proper model for, but think about the (mostly poor) masses will be adopted through cheap LN costs. How much % of the on chain tx will be caused by LN and limilar channels compared to now? I d estimate more than 90% will. So you end up in huge traffic on such a hub node. Sounds not so cheap... |
|
|
|
|
I m really getting pissed how much bs comes up i.o. to achieve personal agendas.
Define: Users, miners, coders, economic majority, spam,... FIRST and without doubt before you try to split bitcoin community into fractions and start fighting 'the other side' with what s just 'wrong' compared to your own wakyshaky undefined standpoint.
We really need to come back to think about satoshis consensus and working auto correction of 'wrong' (who knows in front in that complex env?) implementations through the game theo aproach / Nash equilibrium.
Example: If majority of all will come to conclusion, that entire bitcoin IS too much centralized ( attack might come up), adoption and price will drop -> correction needed ( last option split chain or go altcoin ). consensus will auto follow best and highest adoption.
Relax and stop stupid splitting and FUD spreading.
Edit.
You might ask me to define FUD:
To me, FUD is:
Fear, that anyone could change the 21 Mio, if we allow two much flexibility ?
- no, its Definition of bitcoin and socially enfocred by all players. Attackers are minority
HF fear, feature fear, spam fear, centralization fear
- go away, bitcoin is STRONG it can take lot of things and Yes we need to do lots of mistakes and correct, but that s normal evolution. i have no fear bitcoin will go bust here. Lots of people will fix and get it work again.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
