Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong? not sure Hearn invented LN and implemented it in bitcoinj. ofc blockstream can still develop it further. |
|
|
|
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts? Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains? They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing. They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network. For years?  Oh, not you Jonald!  You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed! * Edited. You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right? People should really stop mixing things up ... his point is that transactions from bitcoin to sidechains are bigger than normal btc transactions. i dont see how sidechains get better with bigger blocks though... LN needs bigger blocks (otherwise its not really safe and easier to attack); sidechains dont. |
|
|
|
no bitcoin is not real value.
i cannot use any where any time or any merchants bitcoin. All merchants not accept bitcoin so it is not real value
i dont know any currency which is usable with any merchant. so no currency has value? IMHO bitcoin has much more real value than any other currency: - "be your own bank" - fast transfers anywhere you like that kind of freedom and has more value to me than anything else |
|
|
|
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work. However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?
But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD. Which is it? I was under the impression that the lightning payment network was synonymous with sidechains or worked in conjunction with it. (If that is incorrect, then I am misinformed.) Regardless, they are both developments of Blockstream and as Roadtrain points out though, this payment network is being proffered for scalability ("mitigate the block size increases"). no Lightning network and sidechains are too different concepts. actually i like lightning network very much, but it depends on bigger block (to be exact: it depends on the availability of blockspace.) sidechains are more like an altcoin which value is pegged to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work. However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?
afaik core-devs said that sidechains are not a scaleability solution (though i dont know there reasoning) to me it seems that a transaction which only happens inside a sidechain is not recorded on the bitcoin blockchain at all (only converting transactions which moves btc to sidechain and vice-versa are) |
|
|
|
the TOR PROJECT has clearly stated a NO BACKDOORS policy.
i think this is also a basic fundamental part of bitcoin or should be for it to survive.
/\BTCXT will have widespread support by Wall Street types because of its' enhanced tracking mechanisms.
Two coins is not a bad thing.
;^)
*eZ^$$$
lol... where do you see enhanced tracking? another fudster  |
|
|
|
my argument is you are all pathologically crippled noobs, if not professional shills with the not-so-hidden agenda of destroying bitcoin.
judging from your post history we share the same vision for bitcoin. its just that you think core is better and i think xt is. is that really enough for you to start fighting like this? do you realize that you actually harm your cause by acting this way? i think you are well-informed. so why dont you share your experience? and i am definitely not a shill and not crippled. i just say what i think. and your opinion gets more and more less important to me - ONLY because of the way you act. |
|
|
|
Right but should we jump from 1 MB to 8 MB?
I preferred Gavin's original proposal of 20 MB. you bet you are. N00b. grow up. "protecting your investment" by insulting anybody is laughable. if you have a real argument tell it or gtfo. |
|
|
|
Enter sidechains and payment networks.
not sure how that will work. we'll see |
|
|
|
|
i like the voting idea; i am just not sure if mining is the best way to vote.
maybe a mix with hashrate and coinage fits better (coinage and not just amount of bitcoins because i dont want people to BUY votes for only one purpose; still possible though. but harder).
imho the biggest problem with any cryptocurrency seems to be that it cant change.
the alternative seems to be just to accept this fact and if we/someone wants a change just use an altcoin for this: but with this approach cryptocurrency cant go mainstream.
edit: btw dont call this democratic voting. democracy means one person one vote. any solution for bitcoin-voting i can imagine means somehow: bigger pockets/bigger involvement has more voting power.
|
|
|
|
Too many FUDs in this forum about Bitcoin XT, but i'm sure increasing blocksize on core is better than use XT  Too many secret inside Bitcoin XT that we don't know how would you increase blocksize? which secrets do you mean? ...just read github and you know it.. very secret |
|
|
|
Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting. If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?
discuss.
if blockstream can profit from it, then many other sidechain provider can also profit it. There will be no monopoly. so how do you think did they rais 21mio investor capital then? last time i checked investors arent altruistic. |
|
|
|
My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.
Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???
there is already a patched xt version which only uses bigger blocks. consensus rules vs client code vs private keys that are three different things. (imho i dont think any of the changes is shady; but everybody can use whatever they want. and miners (=pools) seems to run custom code anyway.) |
|
|
|
plan to make confidential transaction was pushed forward on bitcoin. Once bitcoin has that. What are still the benefits of monero / byte / dash ?
the current XT debate shows that it is nearly impossible to change bitcoin in any way. if a sidechain implements some kind of mixing it has the problem that it needs much usage to be really anon. so atm i dont see a way that bitcoin will have real fungibility and anonymity. |
|
|
|
Yeah, supporting bigger blocks is not the same as XT.
Fellow above nailed it. Bigger blocks = fine. Hostile takeover = wrong. offering another software and hoping miners will use it is not a hostile takeover. nobody is forced to do anything in case of a fork i will own and keep btc and btcxt. |
|
|
|
very good example... it was horrible dealing with EMM386.EXE/HIMEM.SYS under dos to deal with it (=extended blocks). luckily modern systems dont have this problem any more and can address the whole memory (=bigger blocks). |
|
|
|
lol. true.
onemorexmr: let me break this down for you. miners will build on any valid block that follows the protocol rules. Right now we are trying to determine what those rules should be. the current rule is that no block can be bigger than 1mb but as blocks are getting more and more full, people want to raise it. Gavin, Jeff, and Mike all want to raise it. Unfortunately many of the other core devs dont, because they would rather peruse a sidechain solution with their new company called Blockstream.
i can imagine many reasons why a miner would not build on a block which is valid by protocol rules (eg because his country has blacklists for certain transactions or they are trying to push out competition; as long as 51% of them think the same it'll work for them) but anyhow: this discussion is about XT which i fully support. 1mb is simply not enough. |
|
|
|
personally i'd prefer an unlimited blocksize.
Lol you don't know what you're talking about. There are security-related reasons for a cap on block size, and it's not clear yet how big of a block size is safe. i just dont think miners are dumb. if there is a 1GB block i dont think any miner will build on top off it (except it is absolutely necessary) |
|
|
|
We need to raise block size limit. A dynamic block size limit is better than a static block size limit because for later, we need to hardfork everytime the block is full or nearly full. A dynamic block size limit can resolve this issue. The proposal I linked above is a good one but we can make it better by making some changes.
it will double every two years. personally i'd prefer an unlimited blocksize. |
|
|
|
You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.
Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.
i want bitcoin to succeed by making it usable by the masses. not just a few people. thats satoshis vision and thats why i come to bitcoin in the first place. The other part was it to be permissionless, trustless and apolitical. Don't leave that part out, if you actually respect Satoshi's idea. If you're going to be selective about the founding principles, you should look up in the dictionary what the definition of the word "principle" is, as applied to this context. i do. thats why i just wait what miners do. what is in the blockchain or not is THEIR decision... like it or not. what gets downloaded on your pc is YOUR decision by using the respective client. no one is forced and anybody can do what HE wants. i do respect that! we'll see what the economy does in the end. personal freedom and self-responsibility at its best |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
