So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.
1. tier network of core as upstream filters 2. no fixes because even with 99% users moving funds to segwit keys (taking alot of mempool bloat for months). 1% left over of quadratic/bloat spammers can remain with native keys and cause MORE disruption than ever before (16ksigops instead of 4k). thus no 'fix' 3. the 1mb blockspace will be its own cesspit of native spammers making the 'witness/weight' area not be utilised as promoted 4. promises to remove malleation to lower double spend risk of unconfirmed. but then adds RBF and CPFP to increase double spend risk of unconfirmed 5. due to native tx's even malleation is not 'fixed', just has a 'opt-in' tx type for INNOCENT users to use to disarm themselves from making malleated tx's concise enough? |
|
|
|
|
market cap is a meaningless bubble number
i can create an altcoin with 5trillion coins.
put one coin onto an exchange and self it to myself for $1, and suddenly.. drum role.. prepare for mind blowing experience.
the market cap for my alt is $5trillion
|
|
|
|
i can even envision the LN dns SEED acting as 'real estate' agents selling a listing for a price.
EG to get to be listed as a possible route you have to pay a fee to the LN dns to get listed
which only hubs with lots of channels connected would afford
much like the utopia of solo mining turned into pool mining.. efficiency + cost saving + other factors = things not rmaining as the utopian dream people hoped for
I partially agree. I don't think the routing information will be monetized. That will be freely available. what i mean is, USERS to see routes can grab listings free.. but to get listed. becomes real estate game.. get top listing to be the most routed hub, costs premium price.. EG them 'free' newspaper and magazines paid for by charging businesses to advertise in the magazine. front page adverts cost most EG to display items on a webpage does not mean users are charged a royalty to view info. but the business to advertise its services are charged an advertising fee. It's just that there won't be many efficient routes except through big hubs and most will stop trying...and it will further centralized.
A mesh network of everyone connecting to everyone else requires everyone to have at least 2 channels open with unrelated parties.
I can't just open a channel with my dad and another one with my wife. If everyone did that, no one would be able to connect
to anyone but their own family...so everyone needs to connect to 2 random people and then what do you do when you need to
settle? Also, how long will it take to get critical mess for such a decentralized network? It's not impossible but it seems very
impractical. People will just use hubs.... so the whole thing is promised as this p2p solution and its not.
that too.. there are other reasons why i do not think the utopian sales pitch of "LN node users will get paid" But it is much worse than that. If you open a channel with your dad, and a channel with your wife, you need to lock in half of your funds with your dad, and half of your funds with your wife, and what can be transacted in one direction is limited to that amount. Moreover, you have to be careful not to transact all the time "from you to dad", or you will exhaust quickly your channel. So you have to make sure that one time, you transact *towards dad* and another time *from dad*. If dad is on a "highway" and your wife is too, then your modest amount of locked-in coins will not suffice to do the link between the highway on which your dad is, and the one on which your wife is: you will quickly run out of funds and have to settle the channel, with expensive on-chain transactions.
However, if you are a rich guy, you will be able to put up a lot of funds to "dad" and to "your wife" and your channel will live a lot longer before being exhausted. The settlements will be much farther in between. As such, you will be able to have more competitive LN fees than the modest guy.
This is why the "economies of scale" in LN are essentially proportional to your stake. Mind you, you do not get BENEFIT proportional to stake, no, your ability to compete goes with your stake. That's the equivalent of saying that the *efficiency of a miner* would go with the hash rate he has. Now, miners have about similar efficiencies, almost independent of their hash rate, but of course the more hash rate they have, the more gain they have. With LN, the more stake you have, the higher the *efficiency* of your channels.
With such almost linear economies of scale, only the biggest hubs can be competitive in the LN fee market. This is why if ever the LN is up and running and people are squeezed out of the on-chain transactions by the scarcity of the transactions and the height of an on chain fee (if it is not a matter of exclusive room), it will centralize much faster than the mining population centralized, because the economies of scale are much more important in the LN, than in the mining business.
yep, now you know other reasons the big boys want to limit channels to $60 or less |
|
|
|
and here is the reasons that started it all.. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1181 achow101 commented on 28 Dec 2015
From the letter that they signed, Bitpay, Circle, Xapo, and Bitgo are supporting Bitcoin XT. As stated in the letter,
We[the signers] support the implementation of BIP101
The only implementation of BIP101 is BItcoin XT, and they are also promising to
support BIP101 in [their] software and systems by December 2015
December 2015 is almost gone, and they have already promised to upgrade to XT.
Since Coinbase was already removed for supporting Bitcoin XT, then these other wallets should be removed since they also support Bitcoin XT, as seen by the letter they all signed.
BTW, Copay is Bitpay's wallet.
achow101 added some commits on 28 Dec 2015
@achow101 Remove copay
@achow101 Remove circle
@achow101 Remove xapo
@achow101 Remove bitgo and when segwit was getting ready to start needing support... suddenly the politics ramped up and suddenly the segwit supporting entities popped up again @achow101 achow101 deleted the achow101:remove-hard-fork-wallets branch on 29 Oct 2016
|
|
|
|
bitcoin.org (not.com) blockstream/core dominant. doesnt list xt/classic/bu and many others. guess who struck first with the biased listing.. yup the blockstream/core crew https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet it started way back in the REKT campaigns years ago |
|
|
|
1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.
please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan please dont reference a tweet or reddit post. 2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.
much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase... http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b -btcc -blockstream http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c -coinbase those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.
you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools.. also please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china please dont reference a tweet or reddit post. Prove it isn't? Just look at what gear are the big pools using, most people are using bitmain gear, there's no actual competition, they have checkmated the entire mining game. Gladly, economic majority supports segwit and rejects BU. Which is where conservative blocksize will shine in the case of a situation where we go UASF and miners go BU. you have no clue. spend less time on reddit. it will help you here is a hint im sure you could guess where you can find this data (hint: blockreward decoded message) $Mined by AntPool usa1 $Mined by AntPool usa2 $Mined by AntPool usa3 $Mined by AntPool usa4 there are farms in iceland, georgia, canada, usa and many other places. the stratums are spread out all over the world And there's people want to give miners even more power with the BUcoin idea.
sorry but core bypassed node consensus by going soft. and are the only team giving pools sole voting capability. other implementations are NODE and POOL consensus.. plus they dont need to UASF force anything in, and instead just let the community decide or not. only core have shouted out killing pools, banning nodes, PoW nuking asics, mandatory flags.. without actually doing a real listen to the community and unite the community. so i have asked you and your buddies a few times.. what if hearne done exactly line for line decision for decision the same as core. would you support hearnes implementation |
|
|
|
You have been explained already by a couple people how satoshi's vision is incompatible with the concept of cash, because setting a blocksize big enough to allow for main stream transactions on-chain, would mean the people validating the transactions have the power to censor transactions at will because it would be no longer people running nodes but corporations.
Satoshi was wrong when he wanted datacenters running nodes while calling his project p2p cash.
translation: "gigabytes by midnight" "visa by midnight" "hold bitcoin at 1mb to prevent it growing naturally at a pace that home nodes can cope with over decades, because visa by midnight not naturally in a few decades" (facepalm) You are out of your mind if you think technology will grow naturally with the amount of blocksize needed for mainstream onchain cheap fast transactions while allowing people to run nodes at home. By the time bitcoin reaches VISA levels, VISA will be lightyears away. We can't never compete against the expected standards of the average joe onchain, because they are used to the perceived speed of centralized systems. We can do very moderate blocksize increases and that's about it (if you care about network decentralization that is) your out of your mind if you believe: 1. visa got to where it is over night 2. that bitcoin NEEDS to process billions of transactions tonight 3. that bitcoin will be a one world currency for 7 billion people.. tonight or even in a couple decades 3. that halting onchain growth because of fake fears it cant grow. let me guess if you had kids you would break their knee caps at 6month old out of fear they may walk into a moving car before they are 15. and the only thing you can think of is not letting them walk because a wheelchair with airbags is safer which you can only get if your child is disabled. bitcoin today is like the internet in 1992, so let me guess if you could time travel to 1997. you would want to kill off the guys that invent skype and activision because video calls and online gaming wont happen the next day of 1997.. |
|
|
|
1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.
please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan please dont reference a tweet or reddit post. 2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.
much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase... http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b -btcc -blockstream http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c -coinbase those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.
you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools.. also please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china please dont reference a tweet or reddit post. |
|
|
|
25Cents at this time is fair in the future if the community does not grow it may need to go up to 50cents or more but thats the cost of having a inflation free currency.
fair for the well banked first world countries where 25cents = 2 minutes minimum wage labour unfair for the unbanked third world countries where 25cents = hours minimum wage labour so lets word it this way.. because many cannot get out of the mindset of "americanisation" bitcoin is "americanisation" $37.5 now would you use it if it cost you 5 hours labour to use it.. please dont worry about the value.. just think of the context. "would you use it if it cost you 5 hours labour to use it.." |
|
|
|
You have been explained already by a couple people how satoshi's vision is incompatible with the concept of cash, because setting a blocksize big enough to allow for main stream transactions on-chain, would mean the people validating the transactions have the power to censor transactions at will because it would be no longer people running nodes but corporations.
Satoshi was wrong when he wanted datacenters running nodes while calling his project p2p cash.
translation: "gigabytes by midnight" "visa by midnight" "hold bitcoin at 1mb to prevent it growing naturally at a pace that home nodes can cope with over decades, because visa by midnight not naturally in a few decades" (facepalm) |
|
|
|
blockstream are the ones that implemented CLTV and CSV to be the paypal-esq features of 3-5 business day funds maturity after withdrawal(cltv after channel close confirm) and chargebacks(csv after channel close confirm) blockstream want LN as the dominant end goal for bitcoin (multisig channels = permissioned) please research, and yea that does not mean reading reddit scripts |
|
|
|
if bitmain refuses to sell rigs to competitors, then competitors buy something else
What other options are there for standard consumers?  Bitmain is already a dangerous monopoly. i guess i was a little tooo subtle in the other topic... please read it slowly word for word here ill save you searching for it.. im sure other people will notice the subtle hints i canaan should mention a few, but ill leave you to ebang your heads against a wall to show your "estimates" and "assessments" claims. also i am not gonna get baited into the loaded questions of useless hardware such as USB devices. so i will just let you get a bitfuryous about me not spoonfeeding you the data, and instead wait for you to show where you lot got your 70% figures from.
too many people are quoting 70% so i want to see your source
hopefully i have not been too subtle
|
|
|
|
The emergence of rapid transactions will not contribute to centralization. Everyone BTC holder can open a payment channel to earn a commission - > comission fee very reduced. LN will have an open source code.
thats the utopia, not the promise whoever holds the LN seed chooses and directs the "route" LN users follow. it will end up being hubs charging 1cent rather than hops where each hop charges 1 cent. EG channel Google<>frank channel frank<> dave channel dave<>cryptinvest channel cryptinvest<>bitstamp so you think if google wanted to deposit funds into bitstamp frank dave cryptinvest get 1 cent each.. costing google 3cents to get to bitstamp what ends up happening is that people end up not wanting to pay fee's per channel hop because it all adds up. so hubs start connecting everyone to it google ^ v cryptinvest<>bitstamp<>dave ^ v frank now everyone can fund bitstamp for free because they are connected to bitstamo and google can pay cryptinvest for 1cent via bitstamp thus making bitstamp get lots of fee's due to being a hub i can even envision the LN dns SEED acting as 'real estate' agents selling a listing for a price. EG to get to be listed as a possible route you have to pay a fee to the LN dns to get listed which only hubs with lots of channels connected would afford much like the utopia of solo mining turned into pool mining.. efficiency + cost saving + other factors = things not rmaining as the utopian dream people hoped for |
|
|
|
now your just trying to make fake assumptions to pretend thats how things work nodes matter, always have. they keep the pools inline. without the nodes then pools would collude and change the rules every day and users/merchants wont have choice. yes some/alot of users dont care and will just use lite wallets and be sheep followers. but trying to pretend nodes dont matter such as trying to make it sound like people should just shut down their node because they dont matter and instead just run a lite wallet. is sounding more like a strategy which you want to cause centralisation sorry but those that have been around longer than you know how the network works and will continue running nodes as the symbiotic relationship to keep pools inline. we dont want to centralise the network. only core do by trying to bypass nodes (which has failed so far) only core do by trying to by setting up their desire of a tier network structure rather than the peer network structure that has and currently still exists 2009-2017 sorry but nodes matter.. and yes it can cause changes in the network to not simply happen within a month.. but guess what. that should be a good thing. it keeps everyone inline if the community say no / abstain. then the devs should ask the community (nodes) what features should be added that would make the community happy.. not find backdoors to bypass and try pushing through changes that can cause issues/dont fulfil promises and end up centralising the network. put it this way. if we all stopped running nodes and did let one team of devs have the ability to change rules just by bribing pools with free all inclusive weekends like core have done (round table weekends at 'exotic' locations) then what would stop nefarious devs doing the same P.S even back in 2009-2010 satoshi knew there were many different node implementations otherwise he would have just implemented the 2mb in block 210,000. he knew it had to be a consensus event of all the nodes agreeing to upgrade the patch ready for block 210,000 he disappeared because some people started to think that he was a lord and god of bitcoin. so left to let nodes independently work and devs to independently make their own brands. and rely on consensus of the community decide when things should change. P.S core should not be the only brand running/controlling.. pools should not be the only power house. for good diverse decentralised peer network we should remain with the diverse nodes and then make devs ASK "whats needed" not "do this or else codebomb" |
|
|
|
they cannot be trusted to become the new core developers not because of their motives but because they do not have enough skill.
a few things to clarify 1. no dev team should have control.. its far better to have 20 brands of implementations from different teams. and they all are using consensus to stay on the same network. rather than thinking there needs to be a team "trusted to become the new core devs" 2. even core devs should not be trusted. devs come and go, they age, get bored, get bought, they retire or move onto different projects.. devs are temporary. for reasons 1 and 2 no teams should have their asses kissed and held up as kings. EG real world many people trust and adore apple and scream to the world that apple are the only phone for them and start insulting anyone else that wants a samsung/nokia/htc/ etc. my view is lets any manufactur make a phone and all work on the same 4g network and all work together to find a consensus of what standards a 5g network should be. but many say "no let apple be the ones that choose 5g standards" |
|
|
|
How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.
nah. quicker to evict the rich guys in the african cities that pushed people into shanty towns in the first place, which resulted in them needing to search for water. but i think you prefer the fox news version where people strangely just appeard 20 miles from water for no reason. and prefer to live 20 miles "half a day from a water source".. i bet after years of watching fox news and oxfam adverts you still have not asked "why do they live 20 miles from water" and instead just wnt with the "they need money and half gesture wells to fix the problem my point is. too many people are not thinking critically. they see a group of people that pretend to be like gods.. and people just follow them. not asking questions. andreas for instance was kissing segwits ass before april 2016. (yep before devs got together to start actually debugging elements:segwit to then be bitcoin compatible andrea's has not really even described segwit in detail last year about the requirement of needing people to move funds to segwit keys. nor has he explained that spammers will continue on native keys and continue spamming just look at the OP screenshot "even if blockstream could control the devs (they cant)" - lol blockstream ARE THE DEVS. all the other guys are just fanboys and spellcheckers. EG segwit is wrote by Pwuille (blockstream) some edits are done by luke jr and gmaxwell (blockstream, blockstream) segwit was a altcoin and part of the blockstream project. not something core devs independently thought up all by themselves who decided to go soft instead of full network consensus lukejr(blockstream) who is now heading up UASF, samson mow (blockstream) |
|
|
|
huh??
its not like core is going to give anyone a choice on different things,... they have one dish on the menu. its called segwit.
uasf is kind of like giving nodes the vote ... on that one thing... which is even dumber.
sorry if i dont totally follow you.
people are screaming that "pools control the vote"... no. core gave pools the vote. pools didnt ask to be the only ones to vote pools did not force core to give them the only voting power. the problem is that core gave pools the vote. and pools are now saying no, because not all of them believe segwit is 'as promised' or the right solution. but core instead of asking pools whats the hold up or what core could do better. core fanboys are speculating what the hold up is and causing alot of fud and now trying to push UASF. and shouting out threats that pools ned to be killed off with PoW bombs core should ask the community what does the community want, and then make a planB. one that is a node first pools second full community uniting event.. instead of push push push until late 2018 with the half gesture segwit as is version. |
|
|
|
because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote
ive never understood what you meant by this. please explain. instead of using other methods that can activate segwit. core chose only block count. meaning core chose to only use pools flagging as the activation method. and now they cry when pools didnt jump onboard before christmas and then not a couple months later so then the drama of blaming pools and saying pools have nukes that can kill the network so the network has to kill the pools (instead of rationally asking what do pools want code wise that will make them say yes, and then make a plan B that is more community acceptable) |
|
|
|
I agree with him on the Bitmain part. Having a monopoly like that makes the whole system open to bribes and swaying.
monopoly? proof of claim. please dont quote reddit or twitter. show source of real stats. We have a system where miners are voting,
no.. CORE has an implementation where miners are voting because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote other implementations rely on real consensus, nodes and pools also many implementations rely on a PEER network if diverse nodes. segwit relies on everyone not DCG funded to be downstream from the segwit TIER network. |
|
|
|
P.S dont promise/promote 2mb or 4mb.. of data bloat
Which is something that I have not done. check your own post history. the number of times you have been promoting 2.1mb there was even a time that many mentioned 1.7mb max expectation as a better expectation. but you went 'full wetard' repeating 2.1mb endlessly Here is a small example: 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.
They use outdated date to make it seem like Segwit brings only a little improvement for a 'lot of complexity'. Latest transaction pattern usage review shows that we can expect around 2.1 MB. and for months i have been correcting your 2.1mb.... with.. IF 100% used segwit keys.. which you keep failing to understand |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
