the effective block size, part of segwit, was a compromise meant to appease the big blockers. ironically enough this is the part that most big blockers have the most issues with.
Some people feel that discounting the signatures on SW transactions was to make using LN more economical as the on-chain portion of LN transactions (eg creating and settling LN channels) will be very signature heavy. ya i think so too, the official reasoning core gives seems fishy... |
|
|
|
oh this pointless.
lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB
What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability. malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO. most of us agree LN is worth some R&D so ya go ahead and fix the annoyance... If the primary reason for SW is LN, then first of all blockstream should be more transparent about this. More importantly, it is the miners who are supposed to collect the TX fees in Bitcoin, not any 2nd layer solution. Also I am not so sure how good of an idea it is to be changing the Bitcoin protocol in order to pick winners and losers. it is. the effective block size, part of segwit, was a compromise meant to appease the big blockers. ironically enough this is the part that most big blockers have the most issues with. I think mostly everyone is down to fix malleability. the 2nd layer won't be ready for ages... and if miners can produce bigger blocks "real" bitcoin TX will be too cheap for most poeple to care about going to the second layer. however 2nd layer could open up BTC to the ultra-micropayment level, imagine opening a channel and making 100's of tiny tiny TX for online games. things like that. this kind of usecase bitcoin cannot currently DO very well, with LN that changes, and with that on-chain TX will also grow, because these ultra-micropayment-channels need to be funded Via BTC TX. In the end we might very well end up with most of the normal TX on LN and BTC will become a settlement layer with 32MB blocks... and THAT'S FINE. what is not fine is forcing it, to for sure become be that, by artificially limiting blocksize today. |
|
|
|
remember when you were a kid and you'd say " I'll bet you a million dollars !! "  |
|
|
|
oh this pointless.
lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB
What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability. malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO. most of us agree LN is worth some R&D so ya go ahead and fix the annoyance... But people can't push their ideological preferences on everyone else if we do something that simple.  lol right, i keep forgeting BU vs Segwit, has nothing to do with "the debate"  |
|
|
|
FORK YOUR MOTHER
IF YOU WANT TO FORK |
|
|
|
Because back then segwit did not include a capacity increase. Now it does. Segwit also allows for extension blocks which can be activated with a softfork, so the limit can be increased in a safer way than doing a hard fork, when needed in the future. when Weak blocks/IBLT are developed, increasing the limit will be much safer, as these will reduce the resources required to run a half dead-node. ftfy Hmmm that sounds interesting. |
|
|
|
oh this pointless.
lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB
yup and your post isn't pointless. it did something, gregory might have listened. How old are you? the president of core doesn't hang around these parts does he? |
|
|
|
|
oh this pointless.
lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB
|
|
|
|
|
Ops looks like i'm out of temporal sync again, i'll just get my temporal phase discriminator and roll it back .4 microns
|
|
|
|
Segwit makes Lightning Network better and BTC will never have segwit at this point.
It's the TX_ID fix that makes Lightning Network better. and i guarantee you no matter what happens, no matter who "wins". a TX_ID fix will come to bitcoin in less than a year |
|
|
|
nice buy just brought us up to 1150$  |
|
|
|
|
everyone seems to be some kind of altcoin fanboy these days...
must be the top for altcoins
|
|
|
|
|
HODL, MOFO's gonna have FOMO and then we CCMF
|
|
|
|
Usually when people create threads about moon and MOFO then it is a sign of a correction sooner or later, and all because of a rise of a few dozen of dollars
I would be careful now and I expect at least one more drop in the $900 and $800 in the next 2 or 3 months, then true recovery, unless something unexpected happens
mother fucker FOMO MOFO |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
