You will note that I did not challenge the above. I only challenged the absolute twaddle that 'segwit represents some sort of status quo'.

I mean, I have misgivings about The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, but I did not bother to assert them in this exchange. Only your blatant falsehood. Perhaps you should reflect upon your fact/speculation ratio, as you are presenting your conclusions as fact.


This assertion I _did_ call out. As it is self-evidently controversial to any sentinent being.


You can assert such, but it would be a false assertion. But that is another conversation for another day.


You can assert such, but it would be a false assertion.

Fun fact: it ain't over until it is over. And it won't be over until The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is activated. Which can't happen until it is activated. Which in turn cannot happen until it is adopted by the majority. Which cannot happen until individual operators start running it. Which cannot happen until it is released. Which cannot happen until it passes release gate review. Which cannot happen (we would hope) until it is thoroughly tested. Which cannot happen until that release candidate is fully coded and compiled. Which, if I am up to date, has not yet happened. And no amount of JJG bluster will push SegWit over the finish line.


Which is why I merely challenged your false 'assertions of fact', rather than the more encompassing issue of the relative merit of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset vs a simple maxblocksize bump at this point in time. No research required, because the facts in evidence on the points I am challenging are incontrovertible.

Complete and utter reading comprehension fail. You claimed that the status quo is segwit. I just pointed out that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is far and away a larger change to Bitcoin -- the technology, the protocol, and the economics -- than a simple maxblocksize bump would be. Your assertion is a complete falsehood. I am not inventing things against which to combat. I am simply pointing out your ... umm... inaccuracy.


*ahem!* Again, I am merely pointing out that your statement that the situation is settled is a complete fabrication. Why you persist on going off on tangents is beyond me. Read my words, JJG. Quit misrepresenting what I am saying. It could not be more clear. I am merely pointing out that controversy does indeed exist.

I am not making anything up. The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a far larger change to Bitcoin protocol than is a simple maxblocksize bump. Period. To assert otherwise is insanity. Or stupidity. Or obstinance. So which is it in your case?


Well, no. The fact that the discussion is still occurring is evidence of controversy. By definition. English much?

"There you go again"
- Ronnie Raygun

We've been over this. The status quo is completely violated by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Ignorance or obstinance on your part?

I am decommissioning an old phone. While I can just send bitcoins out to an address generated by other wallet, that works only for the stored funds themselves. I would like to also save the transaction history. Is there an option for generating a .csv or similar from the transaction history?

Unless, of course, the economic majority accepts the new rules. In which case the stubborn few stragglers find themselves on a fork unsupported by the security of massive hashpower.

Ya had to go there, hunh?

Thought you had me on ignore? (Despite the derpy action of directly addressing questions to me upthread - whatevs)

Comprehension fail. I am not dismissing that silly privacy-compromising poll because very few are participating. Nay, I ridicule it, as the entirety of all votes amounts to no more than a gnat's fart.

Interesting. Do you expound upon your site as to the specific reasons you believe this will be a lock? What is the link?

Less than the recent Australian auction. Color me shaking in my shoes boots.

It is only cuter that you think the language (presumably the runtime environment? let's explore what you mean here) is the only context in which garbage collection is relevant to the entire 'Bitcoin stack'.

This oughta be fun...

Better than the comical ... the conical ... that other one you were wearing for a half hour.

Among her myriad endearing qualities, Yellen is an unabashed loyal progressive democrat. I wouldn't count out the possibility of her torching the last of the dry powder in effort to stave off the crash until after the election.

Good. Now there's room for a different hat on your head.

SegWit doesn't solve the "2+ minute troll block validation" problem through Schnorr sigs either. Some future feature that is post- SegWit may. Or may not.

^


Pedant, my ass.

You could fork to a different Proof-Of-Whatever. That'd be other than dumping.

I'd cast my lot with the mass of hashpower that dwarfs every other application of computing power ever put to single task by all of humanity.

No - it is not that you don't have a _right_ to, it is that it is perfectly reasonable that someone that does not upgrade HW every so often does not have the _ability_ to run a full node.

Incidentally, the price I paid for the machine that runs several full nodes at the same time cost less than $400. Several years ago.

IOW qwitcherbitchen.


Oh stop it. We've been over this. Repeatedly.

First, current integrated Core release does not fix O(n^2) either.
Second, while Classic (as but one example - indeed the one explicitly named in this apparent miner manifesto) does not resolve the O(n^2) problem, it does render it a non-issue.
Third, aberrant blocks would not 'break Bitcoin', as any sane validator would stop validating a block that took more time than the mining interval to hash.

edit: added 'while'

While i am still catching up with the thread, the opportunity for lulz was just too strong. Sue me.


Interestingly, garbage collection is one of the more intricate problems in many computing systems.

XD

While not really Bitcoin-specific, this recent article from Reason provides a good overview of the US Government's egregiously tyrannical powers:

Could the IRS Empty Your Bank Account?
A little-known rule lets feds steal money from people who haven't been convicted---or even accused---of a crime.
by Robert Everett Johnson and Nick Sibilla

http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/30/could-the-irs-empty-your-bank

Hello Gregory. I was not trying to insinuate anything was wrong, per se. We layfolk are not party to the detailed development plans, and that is OK. However, with several Core supporters deriding alternative node implementations for limiting the effects of the O(n^2) issue, rather than solving it head on -- specifically with the claim that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset addresses this in a better manner -- it is somewhat of a surprise to learn that this feature is not yet integrated. At what point is this feature scheduled for integration? How long has it been in test, and in what environment?

I disagree. The amount of traffic dedicated to the subject shows that transaction volume is a topic of near-universal interest. In light of the fact that the O(n^2) hashing issue bears directly upon the ability of certain transactions to impair transaction volume, it would be a topic perfectly suitable for general discussion.