Bitcoin Forum
July 13, 2024, 09:04:02 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
1  Economy / Reputation / Lauda Removed from Default Trust , Next Corrupt Members Vod, Phantastisch, Qwk on: July 07, 2017, 06:41:27 AM
Lauda was running rampant on BTCtalk ,
negged whoever she lost an argument with or could compete in an escrow or signature service.

She still has 3 little followers left, that red tag others on her say so.

These Users Can Not be Trusted Because they also abuse the DT system for their own selfish motives.
Vod can not be trusted!
phantastisch can not be trusted!
qwk can not be trusted!


 Cool

FYI:
Now it is time to shine the light on them like Lauda, and let the Truth be known how these users abuse the trust system for their own selfish goals. Really a sick and pathetic lot they are.

FYI2:
Default Trust System will always be bullshit, unless the members start self policing each other, and quit allowing red trust merely because they disagreed with another opinion.
Members that label others with red trust merely because they don't like other people's opinion or viewpoint should be banned from the DT forever.



FYI3:
Phantastisch is supposed to be a staff member and Lied Outright saying we had a trade of 50 Risked BTC
on phantastisch 30: -0 / +3   2017-06-17   50.00000000  
However the same asshat had already lied and hit me with red  trust on
phantastisch 30: -0 / +3   2017-05-07   0.00000000

So why would he negg me on 5-07-2017 and then do a trade with me of 50 BTC, on 6-17-2017
answer is simple.
Phantastisch is a liar and a fool, and made the whole thing up.
How can a Staff member & DT member abuse his so called authority , and be allowed to lie in a default trust rating.
IE: This is why Default Trust ratings are bullshit , No Oversight to prevent the abuses that is happening over and over again every single day.
2  Economy / Reputation / Blazed must be Removed from Default Trust to stop Lauda from abusing others on: June 17, 2017, 01:47:53 PM
Read thru the Reputation forum , you find numerous complaints about 1 person

That person is Lauda , then go look at her untrusted feedback.

Lauda & Blazed are running a scam to red tag any other members that have a high ranking and could run a competing escrow service.

Anyone would be a fool to trust Lauda or Blazed with anything , since this is how they treat non default trust members.

Theymos does nothing , it is time to make him notice.

Everyone sick of Lauda and Blazed and Theymos inaction on the matter.

GO to your Forum Profile information
and place a check mark beside
Disable ads:

It is time to hit the man in the pocketbook , until Theymos protects the non-default trust members.

Viva Revolution


 Cool
3  Other / Meta / Lauda has Broken the GuideLine of the Trust System by theymos own words, ban her on: May 12, 2017, 04:15:54 AM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664


Quote
On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.


I never traded anything with that Bitch.

She gave me a negative feedback purely because of my opinion in a post.

No Trade, No Risked Bitcoins



 Cool
4  Economy / Reputation / So Lauda is Theymos on: May 11, 2017, 09:48:59 AM
So I removed all of the negative trust on everyone linked to Lauda,

Because Theymos has rigged the trust system so their shit paints my name red and it hides all of their red marks,

So I removed it as their was no point.

Even went and created a new screen name , so Lauda makes it a point to even leave that screen names negative trust .

Here is Lauda's Trust that Theymos aka Lauda has set hidden





See All of that Red Negative Remarks, if that was you or me, it would count against us and show that Do not Trade Message.

But with Lauda aka Theymos, none of the negative shows up because they tweaked the trust settings so they always have zero negative , you have to look at the untrusted feedbacks , which they are the asshats controlling the settings.


 Cool



5  Other / Meta / @Theymos, This is the Lauda you Protect while she ruins others reputations on: May 07, 2017, 09:11:13 AM
Lauda Lied on me and generated Fake Negative Trust Ratings

She has done the same to many others, and as a former staff menber of BTCtalk the other mods protect Lauda

Examples of Lauda

Q: Should Lauda *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1786074.0


Lauda should have his ability to delete posts in Self Moderated thread removed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1786074.0

More instances where Lauda hit users with Negative Trust
Lutpin and Lauda : Please ?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1693949.0

Lauda's trust rating?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1773274.0

Should Lauda be stripped of staff label?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1273904.0


theymos stance on extortion/blackmail by staff
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1761133.0
Quote
theymos stance on extortion/blackmail by staff
How does theymos feel about staff members blackmailing/extorting members of the forum?
I ask because there have been at least two instances of bitcointalk staff member Lauda admitting to blackmailing forum members.

Lauda extorts money & constantly add Fake Negative Trusts , and you never Perma Ban her once.
Should we just call this LaudaTalk?

 Cool
6  Other / Meta / Theymos , This FAKE LYING ASS Negative Trust Ratings, Remove it or Remove me on: May 06, 2017, 05:15:07 PM
Remove Those Fake Lying Negative Comments from my Name or Kill my Screen Name and Delete all of my Posts

Your Choice ,

I still want your email address for the lawsuit before you kill the screen name if that is the choice you make.

I won't be lied on by a Fake Trust System


 Cool


FYI: Point of Clarification
I am asking the Entire Trust System be Changed for Everyone and all of the old ratings to be Wiped Clean!

And a New Trust System be put in,

where the trust system is based on whether or not there was an attempt at a transaction between the two.
If there was no PMs or Posts or emails about a trade , then the user can not rate you just because they are a dick.
In other words , people can't just place negative trust if they don't like your opinion, like what Gmaxwell did to you or Lauda did to me.

Look , we do nothing and nothing happens, the trust system is broken and I am proving that if nothing else.
So the only question, will Theymos fix it for Everyone or No one.

Just saying ok, is bullshit ,
that is why our planet is in such sorry shape now, too many people say it is easier to ignore,
well fuck that , The Trust System has to be Fixed or Theymos has to Delete me, his choice.


 Cool

FYI:
A Transaction Forum could be created, where 1st member post they want to trade so and so and then the 2nd member posts they agree with the 1st post, 
then they either complete the transaction or not.
If they both complete the transaction satisfactory, then both can immediately add Good or Neutral Trust Ratings to the other with no middle man.
If there was a problem and someone wants to add Negative Trust , then they will fill out a Negative Trust Rating that is send to a Trust Mod ,
This Negative Rating must show a link to the transaction post showing an agreement between the two, if there is a transaction post, then the Trust Mod Approves the Negative Rating , If there are no transaction post showing the two had agreed to trade, then the Trust mod Denies the negative rating.
That Simple Step would stop the people misusing the trust system.
It is not like it is hard to fix, only the will to do it.
Theymos?
7  Economy / Reputation / Beware of Lauda & qwk , They Will hit you with False Negative Ratings on: May 06, 2017, 02:43:59 PM
Click Here to See Who Hit me with False Negative Trust Ratings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904374.0

Will any of you that disagree with them be next?

Time will tell.

 Cool


FYI:

I now have 2 Fake Negative Trust Ratings thanks to Lauda & Qwk

Want to see Lauda's Negative Trust Ratings
I lost count after 50. Now Lauda really can not be trusted.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872


Want to See qwk, he has ~40 Negative Trust Ratings
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=24140



 Cool

FYI:
They want to lie about me, and they both have negative trusts from over 40 people each.
They should not even be allowed to rate anyone else trust, it is apparent almost no one trusts them.
8  Other / Meta / What is the Contact Information For BTCTalk Legal Dept. on: May 06, 2017, 01:29:52 PM
If Lauda Persists in Defamation of my Character by placing False Negative Trust and we are unable to resolve it.

What is the contact information for your Legal Counsel?

As I may have my attorney file a Defamation Lawsuit.
Quote
The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

Due to the Fact, Lauda Lies will hurt ZEIT adoption since I am one of its Primary representatives on BTCtalk ,
it is injurious to me. So a Defamation Lawsuit may be my last resort to clear my name of those False accusations.

Lauda already has a terrible reputation from the multiple negative ratings , and my only bad rating is from Lauda.

Thanks.

 Cool


9  Other / Meta / Who Do I contact about getting False Negative Trust Ratings removed on: May 06, 2017, 12:36:41 PM
Lauda is being petty and Gave me a false negative trust rating, how can it be removed?

We have had no business dealings or trades, and I would like Lauda Lies removed from my screen name.

Thanks.

 Cool


FYI: Point of Clarification
I am asking the Entire Trust System be Changed for Everyone and all of the old ratings to be Wiped Clean!

And a New Trust System be put in,

where the trust system is based on whether or not there was an attempt at a transaction between the two.
If there was no PMs or Posts or emails about a trade , then the user can not rate you just because they are a dick.
In other words , people can't just place negative trust if they don't like your opinion, like what Gmaxwell did to you or Lauda did to me.

Look , we do nothing and nothing happens, the trust system is broken and I am proving that if nothing else.
So the only question, will Theymos fix it for Everyone or No one.

Just saying ok, is bullshit ,
that is why our planet is in such sorry shape now, too many people say it is easier to ignore,
well fuck that , The Trust System has to be Fixed or Theymos has to Delete me, his choice.


 Cool

FYI:
A Transaction Forum could be created, where 1st member post they want to trade so and so and then the 2nd member posts they agree with the 1st post, 
then they either complete the transaction or not.
If they both complete the transaction satisfactory, then both can immediately add Good or Neutral Trust Ratings to the other with no middle man.
If there was a problem and someone wants to add Negative Trust , then they will fill out a Negative Trust Rating that is send to a Trust Mod ,
This Negative Rating must show a link to the transaction post showing an agreement between the two, if there is a transaction post, then the Trust Mod Approves the Negative Rating , If there are no transaction post showing the two had agreed to trade, then the Trust mod Denies the negative rating.
That Simple Step would stop the people misusing the trust system.
It is not like it is hard to fix, only the will to do it.
Theymos?
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / BTC is DYING, LONG LIVE THE NEW KING LTC on: May 04, 2017, 05:58:57 AM
~ Jan 30th, 2017
BTC Price was $922.95
LTC Price was     $3.86

Now on May 04, 2017
BTC Price is $1500.13
LTC Price is     $21.78

BTC Price increased by ~62%
LTC Price increased by
~564.3%

Writing is on the Wall People , Profit from it or ignore it , your Choice!

$1000 invested in BTC would now be $ 1620

$1000 invested in LTC would now be $ 5643   Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Class Dismissed.  Smiley

 Cool
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Gavin Andresen: stay away from Blockstream, Greg and Samson are toxic trolls. on: May 03, 2017, 06:35:36 PM
Former Bitcoin Core’s Gavin Andresen Hits Blockstream, Labels Greg Maxwell and Samson Mow Toxic Trolls

Looks like Gavin finally see G.Maxwell for what he is.  Wink

https://cointelegraph.com/news/former-bitcoin-cores-gavin-andresen-hits-blockstream-labels-greg-maxwell-and-samson-mow

Quote
In March, Andresen openly voiced support for Bitcoin Unlimited, calling it a “viable, practical solution to destructive transaction congestion.”



 Cool
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Will LN Hubs require a Banking License / Banking Cartels will take over Crypto on: April 25, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Charlie Lee has tricked the LTC miners into agreeing to activate segwit for LTC,

Charlie Lee is promising Larger Blocksizes when LTC blocks are half full, the Miners are hoping he keeps his word.
IE: In the below pic , Charlie Lee plays Lucy, and the LTC miners play the bald kid.  Cheesy



Now the BTC Core Shills will try and use this to force the BTC community into accepting segwit.
We will see how that plays out.

LN Hubs will take deposits, (Lock your Funds up Onchain) ,
and then make payments using their offchain representations of your real funds.

Sounds an awful lot like a bank. In fact they will charge fees and penalties, sounds even more like a bank now.  Wink

Here is the issue Boys & Girls,
You can't just open a bank up because you feel like it in most countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_license

Quote
Most state legislatures in the United States ban general corporations from accepting banker's deposits, which ban tends to cover any service whereby a general corporation acts as a funds drawee which transfers current funds (i.e. credit payable upon demand) to make payments as a substitute for coins on behalf of an account holder.

Quote
Licenses are typically issued by a national banking regulator to applicant corporations that meet its banking requirements. The requirements may include minimum capital requirements, minimum number of directors, residence of shareholders, spread of shareholdings, disclosure of beneficial shareholders, besides other matters. These requirements may differ between jurisdictions, and may differ depending on the type of license being sought. Some jurisdictions, sometimes called tax havens, have a reputation for lax or corrupt standards in bank licensing, granting a license, for example, to shell companies, or to companies with nominee directors, or with dummy shareholders, etc.[citation needed]

The granting of the license may involve a long, complex and expensive procedure, which may depend on the type of bank license being sought. There are a number of sectors in which banks may be involved. The general bank license allows a bank to engage in all banking activities, such as retail banking, merchant acquiring, cash management, asset management and trading. An applicant can apply for a limited banking license, such as an offshore banking license.

Once the LN Hubs are in place, the Banking Cartels will have their Politicians pass a Law stating LN Hubs are acting as a Bank by taking deposits and making payments.
This will require all LN Hubs to get a Bank License, if they wish to continue, which most will not have the resources to and it is a lengthily process either way for those that do have the resources.

During this Time the Banking Cartels will buy up the existing LN hubs or start their own, and why not they already have a bank license.
In a Nutshell,
this is how they will completely take over crypto from all segwit activated coins and make sure financial slavery continues for your children's children and beyond.  
Satoshi's dream will be officially dead.  Tongue

 Cool
13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / CoinMarketcap Manipulating the Placement of your Altcoin using Low Volume on: April 20, 2017, 09:25:37 AM
For years CMK,
had set Low Volume trading under $10 in 24hrs trading

This means no matter how much your coin was worth , if the 24 hour trading volume was below $10 ,
your coin was removed from the standard listing and placed 3 or 4 pages from the 1st page in a Low Volume Section, where you were least likely to be seen.

No one complained about this as it had been a set standard of CMK.

Then ~1 Month ago with absolutely no notice to the public ,
CMK, quietly switched it to anything under $100 per 24 hours moved to Low Volume decreasing their visibility.

Again , No one complained.

Now today less than ~ month from the last change
Low Volume trading is anything under $500 in 24 hrs trading
 

This gives a Direct Marketing Advantage to coins on Exchanges like Poloniex & Bitterex where the 24hours volume is Faked on a Daily Basis.
You want proof of this look at the recent list of coins Poloniex is delisting on May 2nd, almost all had 24hrs trading volumes over 100 Thousand Dollars.
Those Numbers were obviously Faked, to increase the price before the exchange dumped them, a key telling point is that these delisted coin's trading volume a month after the delisting will be lucky to see $100 per day much less 100s of thousands.

So Now CMK has sold out the Altcoin communities , to favor the coins hosting on the exchanges faking trading volume.

As I see it , our only choices , if CMK persists in this Blatant Manipulation & Falsifications of our actual values in favor of selected cheating exchanges.

We should all pull all advertisement from CMK,
and start a search for a Reliable Marketcap reporting site and begin promoting the honest site over CMK that is free of Poloniex's manipulations.

For those feeling a larger financial impact from these new false manipulations
May want to start an Collusion/Antitrust lawsuit against CMK & Poloniex, if anyone wants to spearhead that, this is the forum to announce it.


 Cool
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Discussion (Altcoins) / CoinMarketcap Manipulating the Placement of your Altcoin , You Decide. on: April 20, 2017, 08:13:56 AM
For years CMK,
had set Low Volume trading under $10 in 24hrs trading

This means no matter how much your coin was worth , if the 24 hour trading volume was below $10 ,
your coin was removed from the standard listing and placed 3 or 4 pages from the 1st page in a Low Volume Section, where you were least likely to be seen.

No one complained about this as it had been a set standard of CMK.

Then ~1 Month ago with absolutely no notice to the public ,
CMK, quietly switched it to anything under $100 per 24 hours moved to Low Volume decreasing their visibility.

Again , No one complained.

Now today less than ~ month from the last change
Low Volume trading is anything under $500 in 24 hrs trading
 

This gives a Direct Marketing Advantage to coins on Exchanges like Poloniex & Bitterex where the 24hours volume is Faked on a Daily Basis.
You want proof of this look at the recent list of coins Poloniex is delisting on May 2nd, almost all had 24hrs trading volumes over 100 Thousand Dollars.
Those Numbers were obviously Faked, to increase the price before the exchange dumped them, a key telling point is that these delisted coin's trading volume a month after the delisting will be lucky to see $100 per day much less 100s of thousands.

So Now CMK has sold out the Altcoin communities , to favor the coins hosting on the exchanges faking trading volume.

As I see it , our only choices , if CMK persists in this Blatant Manipulation & Falsifications of our actual values in favor of selected cheating exchanges.

We should all pull all advertisement from CMK,
and start a search for a Reliable Marketcap reporting site and begin promoting the honest site over CMK that is free of Poloniex's manipulations.

For those feeling a larger financial impact from these new false manipulations
May want to start an Collusion/Antitrust lawsuit against CMK & Poloniex, if anyone wants to spearhead that, this is the forum to announce it.


 Cool
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Monero Busted , You Decide? on: April 15, 2017, 10:06:18 PM
Monero Transactions History Can Be Revealed and Exposed: Research

https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-transactions-history-can-be-revealed-and-exposed-research
http://monerolink.com/monerolink.pdf


FluffyPony now claims 80% of transactions are untraceable.

So 20% of your transactions are Fucked.

Guess which % your Transaction are in?    Cheesy Cheesy

They probably only need one of those 20% transaction to get a warrant for the rest.  Tongue

Only question now is, can you get out before the price crash?  Tongue


 Cool

FYI:
Tune in next week , when only 40% of your transactions are untraceable.
Then in the months , following None of your Transactions were untraceable.
Then a year later, here is a picture of your cellmate. (FYI: He likes to Snuggle.)   Cheesy



FYI2: According to  Andrew Miller. 100% of your old transactions are traceable.
Quote
AM: So to be more clear, we analyzed two ways of linking Monero transactions.
The first one leads to “conclusive” linking like we can tell with 100 percent certainty that a particular transaction is linked to another.
This method only applies to older transactions.
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Delete this topic , Please. on: April 12, 2017, 06:38:05 AM
.
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / What BTC Core Does Not Want You to Know about Segwit! on: April 10, 2017, 01:58:45 PM
Segregated Witness: A Fork Too Far    by Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179


Quote
3.1 SW creates a financial incentive for bloating witness data

SW allows for a theoretical maximum block size limit of ~4 MB. However, this is only true if the entire block was occupied with transactions of a very small ‘base size’ (e.g. P2WPKH with 1 input, 1 output). In practice, based on the average transaction size today and the types of transactions made, the block size limit is expected to have a maximum limit of ~1.7 MB post-SW (Figure 10; assuming all transactions are using SW unspent outputs?—?a big assumption).

However, the 4 MB theoretical limit creates a key problem. Miners and full node operators need to ensure that their systems can handle the 4 MB limit, even though at best they will only be able to support ~40% of that transaction capacity. Why? Because there exists a financial incentive for malicious actors to design transactions with a small base size but large and complex witness data. This is exacerbated by the fact that witness scripts (i.e. P2SH-P2WSH or P2SH-P2WSH) will have higher script size limits that normal P2SH redeem scripts (i.e., from 520 bytes to 3,600 bytes [policy] or 10,000 bytes [consensus]). These potential problems only worsen as the block size limit is raised in the future, for example a 2 MB maximum base size creates an 8 MB adversarial case. This problem hinders scalability and makes future capacity increases more difficult.

3.2 SW fails to sufficiently address the problems it intends to solve

If SW is activated by soft fork, Bitcoin will effectively have two classes of UTXOs (non-SW vs SW UTXOs), each with different security and economic properties. Linear signature hashing and malleability fixes will only be available to the SW UTXO. Most seriously, there are no enforceable constraints to the growth of the non-SW UTXO. This means that the network (even upgraded nodes) are still vulnerable to transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing from non-SW outputs that existed before or created after the soft fork.

The lack of enforceability that comes with a soft fork leaves Bitcoin users and developers vulnerable to precisely the type of attacks SW is designed to prevent. While spending non-SW outputs will be comparatively more expensive than SW outputs, this remains a relatively weak disincentive for a motivated attacker.

It is also unclear what proportion of the total number of the legacy UTXO will migrate to SW outputs. Long-term holders of Bitcoin, such as Satoshi Nakamoto (presumed to be in possession of ~1 million Bitcoin), may keep their coins in non-SW outputs (although it would be a significant vote of confidence in SW by Nakamoto if they were to migrate!). This makes future soft or hard forks to Bitcoin more difficult as multiple classes of UTXOs must now be supported to prevent coins from being burned or stolen.

One key concern is that the coexistence of two UTXO types may tempt developers and miners in the future to destroy the non-SW UTXO. Some may view this as an unfounded concern, but the only reason that this is worth mentioning in this article are the comments made by influential individuals associated with Bitcoin Core: Greg Maxwell has postulated that “abandoned UTXO should be forgotten and become unspendable,” and Theymos has claimed “the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation.”

As the security properties of SW outputs are marginally better than non-SW outputs, it may serve as a sufficient rationalization for this type of punitive action.

The existence of two UTXO types with different security and economic properties also deteriorates Bitcoin’s fungibility. Miners and fully validating nodes may decide not to relay, or include in blocks, transactions that spend to one type or the other. While on one hand this is a positive step towards enforceability (i.e. soft enforceability), it is detrimental to unsophisticated Bitcoin users who have funds in old or non-upgraded wallets. Furthermore, it is completely reasonable for projects such as the lightning network to reject forming bidirectional payment channels (i.e. a multisignature P2SH address) using non-SW P2SH outputs due to the possibility of malleability. Fundamentally this means that the face-value of Bitcoin will not be economically treated the same way depending on the type of output it comes from.

It is widely understood in software development that measures which rely on the assumption of users changing their behavior to adopt better security practices are fundamentally doomed to fail; more so when the unpatched vulnerabilities are permitted to persist and grow. An example familiar to most readers would be the introduction and subsequent snail’s pace uptake of HTTPS.

3.3 SW places complex requirements on developers to comply while failing to guarantee any benefits

SW as a soft fork brings with it a mountain of irreversible technical debt, with multiple opportunities for developers to permanently cause the loss of user funds. For example, the creation of P2SH-P2WPKH or P2SH-P2WSH addresses requires the strict use of compressed pubkeys, otherwise funds can be irrevocably lost. Similarly, the use of OP_IF, OP_NOTIF, OP_CHECKSIG, and OP_CHECKMULTISIG must be carefully handled for SW transactions in order to prevent the loss of funds. It is all but certain that some future developers will cause user loss of funds due to an incomplete understanding of the intricacies of SW transaction formats.

In terms of priorities, SW is not a solution to any of the major support ticket issues that are received daily by Bitcoin businesses such as BitPay, Coinbase, Blockchain.info, etc. The activation of SW will not increase the transaction capacity of Bitcoin overnight, but only incrementally as a greater percentage of transactions spend to SW outputs. Moreover, the growing demand for on-chain transactions may very well exceed the one-off capacity increase as demonstrated by the increasing frequency of transaction backlogs.

In contrast to a basic block size increase (BBSI) from a coordinated hard fork, many wallets and SPV clients will immediately benefit from new capacity increases without the need to rewrite their own software as they must do with SW.. With a BBSI, unlike SW, there are no transaction format or signature changes required on the part of Bitcoin-using applications.

Based on previous experience with soft forks in Bitcoin, upgrades tend to roll-out within the ecosystem over some time. At the time of this writing, only 28 out of the 78 business and projects (36%) who have publicly committed to the upgrade are SW-compatible. Any capacity increase that Bitcoin businesses and users of the network desire to ease on-chain fee pressure will unlikely be felt for some time, assuming that transaction volume remains unchanged and does not continue growing. The unpredictability of this capacity increase and the growth of the non-SW UTXO are particularly troubling for Bitcoin businesses from the perspectives of user-growth and security, respectively. Conversely, a BBSI delivers an immediate and predictable capacity increase.

The voluntary nature of SW upgrades is subject to the first-mover game theory problem. With a risky upgrade that moves transaction signatures to a new witness field that is hidden to some nodes, the incentive for the rational actor is to let others take that risk first, while the rational actor sits back, waits, and watches to see if people lose funds or have problems. Moreover, the voluntary SW upgrade also suffers from the free-rider game theory problem. If others upgrade and move their data to the witness field, one can benefit even without upgrading or using SW transactions themselves. These factors further contribute to the unpredictable changes to Bitcoin’s transaction capacity and fees if SW is adopted via a soft fork.

3.4 Economic distortions and price fixing


Segregated Witness as a soft fork alters the economic incentives that regulate access to Bitcoin’s one fundamental good: block-size space. Firstly, it subsidises signature data in large/complex P2WSH transactions (i.e., at ¼ of the cost of transaction/UTXO data). However, the signatures are more expensive to validate than the UTXO, which makes this unjustifiable in terms of computational cost. The discount itself appears to have been determined arbitrarily and not for any scientific or data-backed reasoning.

Secondly, the centralized and top-down planning of one of Bitcoin’s primary economic resources, block space, further disintermediates various market forces from operating without friction. SW as a soft fork is designed to preserve the 1 MB capacity limit for on-chain transactions, which will purposely drive on-chain fees up for all users of Bitcoin. Rising transaction fees, euphemistically called a ‘fee market’, is anything but a market when one side?—?i.e. supply?—?is fixed by central economic planners (the developers) who do not pay the costs for Bitcoin’s capacity (the miners). Economic history has long taught us the results of non-market intervention in the supply of goods and services: the costs are externalised to consumers. The adoption of SW as a soft fork creates a bad precedent for further protocol changes that affirm this type of economic planning.

3.5 Soft fork risks

In this section we levy criticisms of soft forks more broadly when they affect the protocol and economic properties of Bitcoin to the extent that SW does. In this case, a soft fork reduces the security of full nodes without the consent of the node operator. The SW soft fork forces node operators either to upgrade, or to unconditionally accept the loss of security by being downgraded to a SPV node.

Non-upgraded nodes further weaken the general security of Bitcoin as a whole through the reduction of the number of fully validating nodes on the network. This is because non-upgraded nodes will only perform the initial check to see if the redeem script hash matches the pubkey script hash of the unspent output. This redeem script may contain an invalid witness program, for P2WSH transactions, that the non-upgraded node doesn’t know how to verify. This node will then blindly relay the invalid transaction across the network.

SW as a soft fork is the opposite of anti-fragile. Even if the community wants the change (i.e., an increase in transaction capacity), soft-forking to achieve these changes means that the miners become the key target of lobbying (and they already are). Soft forks are risky in this context because it becomes relatively easy to change things, which may be desirable if the feature is both minor and widely beneficial. However, it is bad in this case because the users of Bitcoin (i.e. everyone else but the miners) are not given the opportunity to consent or opt-out, despite being affected the most by such a sweeping change. This can be likened to a popular head of state who bends the rules of jurisprudence to bypass slow legal processes to “get things done.” The dangerous precedent of taking legal shortcuts is not of concern the masses until a new, less popular leader takes hold of the reigns, and by then it is too late to reverse. In contrast, activating SW via a hard fork ensures that the entire community, not just the miners, decide on changes made to the protocol. Users who unequivocally disagree with a change being made are given the clear option not to adopt the change?—?not so with a soft fork.

3.6 Once activated, SW cannot be undone and must remain in Bitcoin codebase forever.

If any critical bugs resulting from SW are discovered down the road, bugs serious enough to contemplate rolling it back, then anyone will be able to spend native SW outputs, leading to a catastrophic loss of funds.


4. Fork in the road


Segregated Witness attempts to fix transaction malleability and lay the foundation for scaling Bitcoin through “secondary layers,” which is why SW supporters have dubbed it a ‘scaling solution.’ This immediately highlights that there are two conflicting visions of Bitcoin that need to be unpacked.

Supporters of Bitcoin Core’s scaling roadmap believe that on-chain transaction capacity should be limited in order to encourage higher transaction fees and decrease the cost of running a fully-validating node. Those who prefer prioritizing on-chain scaling believe that on-chain capacity should be increased in order to allow for more user growth, and that the domain of running fully-validating nodes will naturally transition to those with the greatest financial incentive to do so: miners, businesses, and institutions. Contrary to the claims of popular talking points, this does not compromise the decentralized and trustless nature of the Bitcoin system, and this transition was anticipated by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Figure 11: Satoshi on the equilibrium of nodes, and the consumer transition to SPV

There is a very clear conflict of tradeoffs. By keeping the block-size small, only wealthy individuals and institutions will be able to afford on-chain transaction fees, while any user will be able to afford running a full node. By increasing the block-size, any user can afford a transaction, but only wealthy individuals or institutions can afford to run a fully validating node, as Satoshi predicted (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Satoshi on the future network topology of Bitcoin

There are, as of yet, unknown factors within each of these respective visions:

    The lightning network, and/or other second-layer payment layers, may reduce on-chain transaction volume and consequently, fees
    The cost of running of a full node may significantly decrease with hardware, software, and bandwidth improvements

In other words, LN may reduce on-chain transaction volume to a fraction of what it is now, or the cost of running a full node with 10 GB blocks in 20 years time may be laughably trivial. Perhaps both will be true.


4.1 Fee Market vs Capacity Market

Ostensibly, those in favor of constraining the block-size at 1 MB or thereabouts are concerned with the degradation of Bitcoin’s decentralized topology. However, this is somewhat disingenuous as no one?—?to our knowledge?—?has been able to calculate a target for the minimum number of nodes required to be sufficiently ‘decentralised’. This qualitative parameter can be used as a strawman argument for rejecting any increase to the block-size, or to reject anything at all, because it is impossible to argue against. Of course, it is simultaneously impossible to argue for it.

In the absence of any empirical measures by which decentralization is defined, we must reject this argument as a reason to constrain the block-size. What appears to be the more likely justification for constraining the block-size is an attempt to maximise transaction fees collected by the miners by artificially suppressing the supply of the block-space resource.

This is at odds with a more reasonable approach of allowing the supply of on-chain transactions to be regulated by miners, a capacity market, to optimize the total transaction fees harvested in each block as a function of supply and demand. This means that marginal on-chain transaction fees can effectively decrease as volume grows over time. The price of on-chain transactions with time and competition will approach the marginal cost of supply at any given demand level.

Conclusion

Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history. The push for the SW soft fork puts Bitcoin miners in a difficult and unfair position to the extent that they are pressured into enforcing a complicated and contentious change to the Bitcoin protocol, without community consensus or an honest discussion weighing the benefits against the costs. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial?—?nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW.

While increasing the transaction capacity of Bitcoin has already been significantly delayed, SW represents an unprofessional and ineffective solution to both transaction malleability and scaling. As a soft fork, SW introduces more technical debt to the protocol and fundamentally fails to achieve its design purpose. As a hard fork, combined with real on-chain scaling, SW can effectively mitigate transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing. Each of these issues are too important for the future of Bitcoin to gamble on SW as a soft fork and the permanent baggage that comes with it.

As much as the authors of this article desire transaction capacity increases, it is far better to work towards a clean technical solution to malleability and scaling than to further encumber the Bitcoin protocol with permanent technical debt.


 Cool
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Segwit / Blockstream / G.Maxwell / Banking Cartels Supporters Fork Off Already on: April 07, 2017, 05:57:30 AM
As the Issues with BTC limitations,

ie: ONCHAIN TRANSACTIONS CAPACITY continues being ignore by the BTC Core Dev Team

They Continue pointing fingers and blaming others for their lack of achievements, and make false accusations,
and even claim making ASICS more energy efficient is an attack vector.
(How Stupid can someone be to think making a product more energy efficient is an attack vector.)
(1 word => DumbAss)
 
So enough is enough , If the Segwit Supporters believe in their code so much,

Hard Fork Segwit and lets move on.

Either Put up or Shut up, Hard Fork or STFU about the trying to give BTC to the Banking Cartels.

And if you seqwit supporters are afraid of Hard Forks, give up crypto all together, you are too timid for the virtual world.  Tongue


 Cool
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / * Note to BTC Core Devs, BitFury is Going to Sue you if you Change the PoW Algo on: March 28, 2017, 10:59:10 PM
https://themerkle.com/bitfury-becomes-desperate-and-threatens-to-sue-bitcoin-developers/


BitFury Threatens to Sue Bitcoin Developers


Quote
When you thought things couldn’t get any more interesting, George Kikvadze, Vice Chairman of BitFury firing some shots on twitter.
According to him, those that might possibly change the POW protocol for Bitcoin will get prosecuted to the fullest extent.
It is obvious why BitFury is terrified of a POW change,
the company raised over $90M in funding which could become futile if Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism is altered.


Bitfury does not seem to understand if/when Core pulls the rug out from under the ASICS,

They will only have a few days to switch to BTU before bankruptcy becomes a major concern for them.

They don't have time to wait for a lawsuit.


 Cool

FYI:
If Bitfury switched to BTU now, BTU would only need ~5% more to make BTU a Success Story for BTC.
Why does Bitfury even want to work with Core as Core threatens them with a Bankruptcy when they switch PoW.
Slave Mentality , I guess.
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Discussion (Altcoins) / Places Where I can Direct Buy LTC for FIAT using a Credit Card or Bank Account on: March 28, 2017, 03:29:07 AM
BTC is Now Dead to me , because of their ridiculous fees.

BTC officially sucks,

$ .60 fee to send BTC, this is on top of a $2 cost to convert from FIAT to BTC.

So now the Minimum Cost to send $20 of BTC is $2.60  .

That is a 13% fee of the total amount.

It is now cheaper to send money by using a Money Order than BTC, and with the large # of unconfirmed transactions,
mailing a money order may be faster.


BTC is Now Slower than the US Postal Service, Tongue


So where can I buy LTC or Doge directly for FIAT using a Credit Card or Bank Account?

Coinbase is bullshit, because they don't have a Direct LiteCoin wallet.

What other places are available?


  Cool
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!