|
public announcement:
the will of the majority has officially dissolved my own, i hear by welcome and am excited to see how all this segwit + LN + very decentralized nodes, will play out, and i think it will be a positive change.
my foolish notions of sacrificing some decentralization for immediate capacity incress are no more, and have been replaced with a more balanced view of growth by means of additional layers in order to provide unlimited capacity while keeping bitcoin fully decentralized.
the temporary congestion on the network due to the lack of readiness of LN, is insufficient justification to change the conuses protocol to 2MB blocks.
I make no apologies for my past views, and the poeple i have annoyed, it was necessary for me to play devil's advocate to apply and maintain maximum tension between both sides, to insure the most balanced outcome was reached. now that the course is locked in i see no reason to continue to fight a losing battle.
|
|
|
|
Core logic: if bitcoin nodes are only ran by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
Classic logic: if bitcoin becomes a settlement layer only used by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
i side with Classic on this one....
Not really. Although, there are even people that argue that Bitcoin has always operated as a settlement layer. Anyhow, stop with the bullshit and nonsense from Classic. The block size limit is the most ineffective, and idiotic way to scale Bitcoin. Discussing is pointless at the moment due to three things (that we have concluded over this time period): 1) You're wrong. 2) You won't admit to being wrong regardless of evidence. 3) Look again at 1. the only evidence i will accept is some logical scenario in which i can still send 5$ donation to wikileaks, even if fee on the blockchain are above 5$. |
|
|
|
|
Core logic: if bitcoin nodes are only ran by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
Classic logic: if bitcoin becomes a settlement layer only used by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
i side with Classic on this one....
|
|
|
|
who will open LN channels and make 1000's of payments to each other? poeple like CoinBase and Bitpay. LN will interconnect these large entities and allow them to settle without the blockchain. here is a visual representation of the LN scaling solution  Actually, that sounds great. Are you trying to sell Lightning network... and to discontinue your pursuit of XT/Classic and/or other variations? In the above described scenario, some of the bigger players will get off of the direct block; however, with LN they are still going to be within bitcoin and somewhat more transparent than they are currently with there variety of stupid-ass off chain transacting systems. Accordingly, LN is going to probably accomplish at least a few goals 1) keeping more transactions accountable on the blockchain which lessens likelihood of fractional reserve banking 2) freeing up more of the blockchain for direct transactions, without the big boys, 3) allowing further delays in keeping the blocksize limit down in order that we do not get too much bloating its a problem... when coinbase realizes it always has about 10X more user deposits then it does user funds tied up in the lighting network, and can easily start fractional reserve operation. IMO LN will fosters this type of scheme were coinbase behaves like a bank, and blockchain is a settlement layer the users dont have direct access to. also, I might not be able to send a 5$ donation to wikileaks because coinbase is a regulated entity and i am forced to deal with coinbase for TX <25$ because its to costly to do <25$ payments directly on the blockchain. how to regulate the blockchain payments. step 1, regulate large bank like bitcoin entities step 2, prohibit users from using the blockchain directly by imposing high fees. DONE! I might be exaggerating the level of fees. fees might very well come down to 2012 levels once LN makes all the TX happening between bitpay coinbase bitfinex stamps etc etc all of chain, allowing users to keep making direct payment on the blockchain and leverage the LN to quickly move funds between coinbase and stamps or whatever. but i can see how eventually ( should the 1MB limit never be raised ) the blockchain will be over runned by LN open and close TX's and since millions of dollars will be transacted in these channels fees for opening and closing these channels could be 10's if not 100's of dollars. a fee of 50$ to transact the main chain means individuals payments MUST go through payment gateways which is a bad thing, which is what bitcoin was meant to avoid. |
|
|
|
i'm a nut case troll.
consider this
"running a BU node is the only way i have of voting for for feathers i like"
and
" I dont care about individuals not being able to run a node "
clearly i dont have a solid / consistent mindset.
Okkaaaaaaaaay So, you want to impose your vision on everyone else, and you don't care if the decentralised network is threatened? You need to get your shit straight, that's disgracefully anathema to everything Bitcoin is supposed to be about. Adamstgbit: Freedom for me (to be a "nut case troll"), everyone else can go screw themselves. Voting for Trump, too? I simply want a way to "vote for" my vision. if my view gains >51% THEN impose it on everyone else.  to me decentralization at 1 level higher than individuals is fine... i'm ok with only 1000's of businesses running nodes, so naturally i'm not ok with holding back capacity simply to keep nodes in individuals reach. in my view bitcoin should not be about making a payment system which is censorship resistance or anything like that, its simply about making a payment system which is decentralized and digital, if all the node agree to block payments to known terrorist bitcoin address or some shit, i'm OK with that. yes i understand this notion is very much against the majority of bitcoiners values, i am an extremist in my views, and they are uneducated views, but hey that doesn't stop me from having an opinion. BUT, i respect the majority's will to keep bitcoin as decentralized as possible, even if i strongly disagree, for the simply fact that i realize that my small opinion is worthless when compared to the opinion of the majority. i'm not american so i can't vote for Trump but i would if i could. he had me at WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL! i think the idea of building a wall is nuts but it made me lol so i vote for him! hahahahaha i'm not being very truthful or considerate in this post, just trolled the shit out of this post. TL;DR; Trollololololol |
|
|
|
I dont think its useful of any individual to open a channel with another individual.
Simple case where this is useful - you want something translated and the translator charges per sentence (or per paragraph). You open a channel and pay (not settle) per sentence (or paragraph) - if you think the translation is rubbish you close the channel otherwise you keep going until you have as much translation as the other person wants to provide. You don't think that is useful?(of course some sort of reputation system would also be helpful but this is a very simple and trustless way to obtain a service from an individual) no. i don't think thats useful or practical. maybe i rent movies often, maybe i want to open a channel rent movies and settle every so often. that makes more sense... but meh, i'm not sure i prefer the idea of making many many small payments Vs one large payment at the end of the month.... |
|
|
|
No, I said continue thinking, not stop when it's most convenient to your present intellect. To understand new concepts, intellectual development is required, by definition.
You're either totally lazy, the most accomplished troll on Bitcointalk, or (my preferred possibility), the biggest troll without even intending to be so. Because your inane, non-sensical ramblings are almost as annoying as the "We've been Franked" character.
i'm a nut case troll. consider this "running a BU node is the only way i have of voting for for feathers i like" and " I dont care about individuals not being able to run a node " clearly i dont have a solid / consistent mindset. |
|
|
|
i can't imagine We all have that problem sometimes Adam, but instead of assuming that things I cannot conceive are impossible, I continue to think when I reach such an impasse. So, keep thinking.and here i am sharing my thoughts and discussing. |
|
|
|
Ok Adam, that sounds wonderful, but it isn't Bitcoin. Can we take it that you will be adopting this non-existent currency you're talking about? You're abandoning Bitcoin?
I am adopting BU (Bitcoin Unlimited). Why not adopt a real currency, instead of a hard-fork stalking horse? BU successfully forking the blockchain is about as likely as XT doing the same at this point. Dogecoin, maybe? thats like saying why vote for the green party thats just throwing away a vote. I'm not adopting BU in hopes of hard forking bitcoin, i am adopting BU because it aligns best with my opinions, and running a node is the only way i can let that opinion be felt by the network. I want to see more nodes adopts things like thinblocks and so I feel its only fitting i adopt it myself. also i want core to lose its dictator status, i want to see the opinions of other devs considered and respected. i'm fine with BU never able to convince miners to HF to unlimited Blockspace, but i'm not fine with that option not being an option simple because one group of devs dismiss it and miners only listen to 1 group of devs. What i see right now is that miners are afraid of a "change in government" this is the primary reason why XT and Classic failed to gain their support. its not a change of government i want, its a change in governance. if that makes any sense  so i do everything i can to make that happen, run a BU node and chat about it. |
|
|
|
these are my concerns with LN + small blocks, maybe i'm way off... maybe going through somthing like coinbase to pay for morning coffee is acceptable, maybe fees on the blockchain will only prohibit these tiny <25$ payments. maybe this is the best course to follow. IDK i'm just here chitchat about this FUD on my mind.
Why do you keep spreading the misleading narrative that LN is a Hub and spoke system where people have to use trusted third parties? This is the exact opposite of what the LN is intending to do. LN allows you to make tx with people you do not trust and are complete strangers anonymously and securely. It allows the average user to get instant confirmations securely from strangers without third parties like bitpay /coinbase. Please educate yourself and let this sink in before spreading more misinformation. I dont think its useful of any individual to open a channel with another individual. It dosnt make sence, i can't imagine a scenario where i would want to open a channel to make 100's of payments in a short time and close it. I do see how bitpay and coinbase might want to do that. I believe LN will be used primarily to connect and move user funds quickly between bitpay, coinbase, bitfinex, stamps, etc etc etc... |
|
|
|
|
these are my concerns with LN + small blocks, maybe i'm way off... maybe going through somthing like coinbase to pay for morning coffee is acceptable, maybe fees on the blockchain will only prohibit these tiny <25$ payments. maybe this is the best course to follow. IDK i'm just here chitchat about this FUD on my mind.
|
|
|
|
who will open LN channels and make 1000's of payments to each other? poeple like CoinBase and Bitpay.
LN will interconnect these large entities and allow them to settle without the blockchain.
here is a visual representation of the LN scaling solution
What you are discussing is a sidechain like liquid. LN is a p2p solution that requires 100% of payments to settle on the blockchain. No wonder you are a Classic/BU supporter, you have absolutely no clue how the LN works. Every single LN transaction is a real on the chain(but delayed) bitcoin transaction the moment it is initiated. 1000's of TX are boiled down to and open and close TX on the blockchain, sure, this is fine this is good. but if we only allow these types of open and close TX on the blockchain ( by strictly limiting blockspace and having high fees ) we end up forcing individual users into trusting someone like coinbase ( how is in a position to utilize the LN ) to with their bitcoin TX. Grass Hill Alpaca will not start using LN, it will use let bitpay deal with that sort of thing. bitpay will not open millions of channels to users it will open them with Coinbase or bitfinex, users will be allowed to pay bitpay using coinbase account without there TX ever hitting the blockchain, because LN interconnects bitpay and coinbase. kinda like you need to go through a bank to do a e-transfer, you'll need to go through something like coinbase to do a Bitcoin TX to pay for your morning coffee. |
|
|
|
Ok Adam, that sounds wonderful, but it isn't Bitcoin. Can we take it that you will be adopting this non-existent currency you're talking about? You're abandoning Bitcoin?
I am adopting BU (Bitcoin Unlimited). because it is dev.ing in the direction i like, ex. its thinblocks impl. I hope more and more poeple look into BU and start running BU nodes, i dont know buy the argument that these devs are amateurs. and i dont like cores monopoly over development. i believe in competing impl working hard to have their feathers adopted by miners and nodes, not a handful of poeple dictating what bitcoin is, and what it ought to be. |
|
|
|
who will open LN channels and make 1000's of payments to each other? poeple like CoinBase and Bitpay. LN will interconnect these large entities and allow them to settle without the blockchain. here is a visual representation of the LN scaling solution |
|
|
|
classic isn't dead!
classic fanboys aren't maybe, but you guys had to be pretty braindead to support it to begin with. Oh no, you're one of these "subtle" fanboys who claimed to "only" support 2MB2MB2MB2MB2MB, right?  Everyone knows Adam, Classic and XT had ZERO to do with scaling, because they weren't credible scaling solutions by any metric, they were designed to slowly strangle Bitcoin (if Gavin Andresen had his way, we'd have 20MB blocks right now, and there'd no chance that people like me could maintain my Bitcoin node). So, for the umpteenth time, if you haven't got anything sensible to say, be quiet with thinblocks and other improvements you probably could run a node from home with 100MB blocks ( provided you have a unlimit BW plan, somthing in the order of 50-100$/month ) not that i care if individual users have to run SPV clients while full node are ran by 1000's of businesses. what you dismiss as a scaling solution is infact the classical scaling solution. and you fail to understand that centralization of accessibility to TX on the blockchain is infinitely worse then node centralization. |
|
|
|
the future is now.   |
|
|
|
classic isn't dead! I think its been fairly obvious for a while now that core would win the battle. this latest meeting in china has made that clear as day now. but the war will not stop here. IF core can incress capacity and move a lot of TX onto lightning network, clearing enough space for bitcoin to continue to grow for the foreseeable future, then and only then will classic die.  |
|
|
|
Hi all,
Based on past experience, I can predict the first one or 2 people to try to complain about this type of post, so F offf...
My first confirmation is taking way to Effing long!!!
This time, I gave more then the min. required fee, and the transaction still was ignored in a block with over 3,000 transactions.
I Love Bitcoin, but it has serious issues which need to be solved soon.
I also feel that Sometimes we have a very urgent necessity and slow confirmation of this. of course very annoying and disturbing right ? what should we do to resolve this? for segwit & LN  |
|
|
|
come on tell me how much BTC you got?
I ain't tellin At this point, I'm scared to say. What you got, Adam? 50-ish? Or... i'm not rich yet. |
|
|
|
you're such a little bitch you know that...
..why you gata be like that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
