Auftragen, rechte Hand. Polieren, linke Hand. Auftragen, polieren. Einatmen durch Nase, ausatmen durch Mund. Auftragen, polieren.
-Herr Miyagi
Dafuq? Can you translate the battle for Willie's soul into swahili too? |
|
|
|
What happened to Stolfi?
jstolfi is still active in some corner of that cesspool called reddit. Imagine dumping the *ahem!* intellectual discussion here for that swamp! I don't get it myself. But he still is espousing interesting insights. While he always seemed to be a non-believer, he always had cogent analysis to offer. |
|
|
|
Maybe someone should stop thinking about things like BitLicense and start thinking on how to properly seize and punish those who use cryptocurrencies for illegal activities and a way to protect those who are wrongly arrested and/or investigated.
Maybe we should think about how to properly punish wrongdoers. The fact that some crimes employ crypto is irrelevant. While I know the doctrine of 'money laundering' being a crime currently exists, I find these laws insane. There is nothing evil or immoral about moving money about in any fashion. The mere movement of money harms no one. Some time back, lazy enforcers were somehow able to enact laws that they could use when they were not able to actually prove real wrongdoing. It sounds reasonable on its face, but from first principles, there is nothing good about this. Now we've reached the point where innocent people routinely are prosecuted for things which have no evil intent. |
|
|
|
Things ignored by this post:
...
At the end of the day, _no one_ has the authority to push a hardfork onto other people
Things gmaxwell may be hoping you ignore in this post: The segwit design calls for a future bitcoinj compatible hardfork
- Gregory Maxwell greg at xiph.org, [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system., https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html |
|
|
|
Blockstream's entire future is dependent on Segwit. Jihan holds the power to deny them what they need, until they give him what he wants.
Well, Core _could_ capitulate on the 'anything less than 95% is evil' doctrine. That'd be fun. |
|
|
|
As far as I know most of them are news and price apps, something you look at every now and then to see what's up.
Sounds useless, seeing as you can get that info from Apple's native iOS Stocks app. |
|
|
|
Buy back in,
What could possibly have given you the impression that have sold? If I had, I would not be wasting my mental energy trying to chip away at this wall.
sit down in the back of the bus and stfu for once.
No. GFY. Neener-neener. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Unlimited is highly experimental and many of the basic operating principles are at best speculative.
As is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. |
|
|
|
Upon activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, previously fully-validating nodes are rendered non-validating nodes, as they are incapable of validating SegWit transactions.
Upon activation of the Classic hardfork, around 25% of nodes on the network--probably more since the activation threshold only counts miners and plenty of people seem fond of running old node versions--would be either forced to upgrade or kicked off the network entirely... unless the user ecosystem (vendors, exchanges, etc...) isn't supporting Classic anyways so 75% of miners just end up forking themselves onto something no one uses  Agreed. I'm just trying to cut through the FUD that claims The SegWit Omnibus Changeset has no effect upon legacy nodes. For such is a lie. |
|
|
|
they have to pay costumers back.
 |
|
|
|
Still I really like Bitcoin's instant 0-confirmation. You are not in doubt for minutes whether or not the transaction will likely be successful.
In an era of full blocks, you can no longer trust zero-conf will ever confirm. |
|
|
|
Have you read the LN roadmap or cores roadmap with flexcap?
Yes. I think so. Maybe. Seems every 'roadmap' I read is later disavowed. Links? |
|
|
|
Upon activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, previously fully-validating nodes are rendered non-validating nodes, as they are incapable of validating SegWit transactions.
The only thing they don't validate is segwit signatures. Thank you for confirming. What if the number of bitcoin users increases by by some factor due to new entrants, and a few of them fire up nodes, such that absolute node count rises while percentage drops? This is an effect that was reasonably expected in 2011/2012 which has been thoroughly debunked by experience. While that may be true, past performance is not guarantee of future results. There are enough variables in this system that it is hard to interpret causality for future perturbations. But more to the point, I was trying to drive to forevernoob's personal definition of 'decentralization'. I feel the conversation is difficult, as many use 'but decentralization' as a war cry, but never reveal what the term means to them. In Core we've been working frantically for years slamming out performance improvements to try to use optimization to compensate for load increases to protect decentralization.
Thank you for the effort. But now that you've invoked the buzzword, I am now interested in your personal definition. Hypothetically, would such a situation (increase in absolute number but decrease in percentage of users) represent -- to your mind -- centralization or decentralization? And is the set of non-mining, fully-validating nodes the most critical decentralization dimension of the system? |
|
|
|
You don't seem to get it. What is most important for me is consensus and how Bitcoin is developed. 75% is not consensus.
You're right - there is something in your statements that I don't quite get. If 75% is not consensus, then neither is 95%. So... what's your point? I don't really care about SegWit since it's a soft fork and not something forced upon me. Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.
I don't believe SegWit will centralize the network. I am however certain that forever growing blocks will centralize the network. Yet The SegWit Omnibus Changeset grows blocks. Just to be clear, your argument is that increasing maxblocksize centralizes the network of non-mining, fully-validating nodes, by reducing the absolute number of such nodes, due to increased per-node resource demand? What if the number of bitcoin users increases by by some factor due to new entrants, and a few of them fire up nodes, such that absolute node count rises while percentage drops? Is that an increase or decrease of decentralization in your definition? And your answer didn't change my mind about that.
Cool. I can agree to disagree. I'm just trying to cut to the core of the facts in dispute, and peel back the falsehoods heaped atop them. SegWit isn't perfect but at least it's opt in. It's not forced on anyone.
Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes. Care to explain this in detail? Sure. In one sentence. I thought it was crystal clear already. So here goes - to wit: Upon activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, previously fully-validating nodes are rendered non-validating nodes, as they are incapable of validating SegWit transactions. |
|
|
|
1) You said "the increase is very small", correct? Accordingly, I interpreted this as you agreeing there was indeed an increase. In what way is that misrepresenting your statement? I am just trying to cut through the fog to figure out exactly _where_ our disagreements actually lie, in this thread full of shillery on both sides of the argument. Do you now deny there is an increase in bandwidth and storage required with vs. without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset for representation of each transaction? And if you do, then by what mechanism are the main chain transaction structures correlated to the witness chain transaction structures?
Segwit is a necessary for Schnorr signatures which do indeed reduce Bandwidth and storage(far more than what is added with segwit). While that may be, I was unaware that this Schnorr signature feature was a part of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Last I heard, the devs concluded 'expect BIP within next year or so'. No? Additionally, there are greater concerns than storage costs and bandwidth for scalability such as eliminating the quadratic cost in transaction signature hashing and reducing UTXO bloat.
At his point in time, I am unaware of anyone reporting the quadratic cost in signature hashing as being a significant issue other than the one party who intentionally created a single-transaction maxblocksize block to perform an experiment that ended up as nothing but fodder for concern-trolling. Either way, there are other solutions to this issue. I think the free market would solve this on its own. What incentive does a miner have to continue hashing on a block that it knows is going to take multiple block intervals to hash? The miners' own self-interest would cause them to orphan that block and get back to hashing. Whatever - that's peripheral to the proximate discussion. Are you trying to insinuate that the package of benefits that Segwit provides is worse than the slight increase in overhead to bandwidth and storage costs?
No. I am trying to cut through the FUD. This entire argument has had each point meme-ified, to the point where a large number of people are under the impression that SegWit itself (as merely part of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset) reduces the storage and bandwidth demands upon non-mining, fully-validating nodes, and thereby through this mechanism increases decentralization. Which is demonstrably false. While I am a 'simple maxblocksize bump now' kinda guy, I acknowledge there is a lot to like in the SegWit Omnibus Changeset. Unfortunately, also a lot to loathe. So I will continue to try to publicly pull back the layers of falsehoods being circulated regarding the bigblock now position. |
|
|
|
I'll read it when I need a laugh. I scanned as far as 'Roscrucians', and could go no farther. Yeah, you're just not open to shifting paradigms and thinking disruptively. The Truths of the Order of the Rosy Cross are more powerful than bioth your beetcoin and BBQcoin put together.  |
|
|
|
So BitUsher also cedes the point that SegWit does nothing to ease centralization due to burden of larger blocks upon fully-validating nodes. Joining Lauda, exstasie, and forevernoob. Excellent. Who's next?
This is just dishonestly misrepresenting my whole statement. To think I donated and helped promote your daughter recoup her losses after your arrest as well and this is how you treat me? If you disagree , fine , but this dishonesty is really shameful. 1) You said "the increase is very small", correct? Accordingly, I interpreted this as you agreeing there was indeed an increase. In what way is that misrepresenting your statement? I am just trying to cut through the fog to figure out exactly _where_ our disagreements actually lie, in this thread full of shillery on both sides of the argument. Do you now deny there is an increase in bandwidth and storage required with vs. without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset for representation of each transaction? And if you do, then by what mechanism are the main chain transaction structures correlated to the witness chain transaction structures? 2) Thanks for your donation. Sincerely. But that was not for me nor my daughter -- it was for fellow forumite BurtW - well, actually for his daughter. And him as well, I guess, as a show of solidarity, if not monetarily. A worthy cause totally divorced from the discussion at hand. |
|
|
|
So I see franky1 has already posed the first question to gmaxwell, to wit: " What part of 'fully-validating' do you fail to understand?" So BitUsher also cedes the point that SegWit does nothing to ease centralization due to burden of larger blocks upon fully-validating nodes. Joining Lauda, exstasie, and forevernoob. Excellent. Who's next?
Nice classic-speak jbreher-- Someone saying that a change increases bandwidth usage doesn't mean they're saying it does nothing to mitigate. So gmaxwell also cedes the point that SegWit does nothing to ease centralization due to bandwidth and storage of larger blocks upon fully-validating nodes. Joining Lauda, exstasie, and forevernoob, and [edit: BitUsher may not be correct - standby for explanation]. Excellent. Who's next?  ...
And I was so hoping we could discuss the following: In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.
Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids against the will of an economically significant portion of users, and risking a persistent ledger split in the process is not a comparable thing. It's something that Bitcoin Core strongly believe it does not have the moral or technical authority to do, and attempting to do so would be a failure to uphold the principles of the system. It's not something to do lightly, and people who think that it's okay to change the system's rules out from under users who own coins in it are not people that I'd want to be taking advice from-- that kind of thinking is counter to the entire Bitcoin value proposition. So just to be clear - do you maintain that block size increases are necessarily "Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids", and are therefore necessarily evil? Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase).
- Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html |
|
|
|
The West is selling ... their bitcoins because there is nothing left for sale and they need to eat something. The only thing West still produces is Western values.
And food. The west produces food. In abundance. The rest of the world needs to eat something. Educate yourself, Westerner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InediaI'll read it when I need a laugh. I scanned as far as 'Roscrucians', and could go no farther. |
|
|
|
I don't understand why there isn't a global policy of involuntary euthanasia for nazis. Seems like a no-brainer.
No-brainer only if performed via encephalectomy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
