Hmm, Nope

Can you be a cloud miner, sure but Cloud miners always lose more than they make, they would have been better off just to buy BTC than trying to mine it.

The real question, is can Anyone be a Profitable Miner, for that you need a few million dollars of capital to invest.
Most people can not afford the start up cost, so sorry anyone can't be a BTC miner (it is a myth that has been dead for years.) 

 

Not all of the miners are blocking changes. If most of the nodes accept a change these nodes can ignore new blocks that do not flag support for the change. This way the nodes can create economic pressure to miners blocking changes.

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

Okay, but even if you're skeptical about the benefits, surely it would still be better to see it in action first.  Then, if it doesn't deliver on its promises, at least it's an undeniable fact and not just speculation.  

Think about it.  If it does fall flat on its face, you get to say "I told you so" to a few dozen people who just lost a whole bunch of credibility and you're in a much stronger position to push for a blocksize increase.  All the people who are still queuing for blocks will be pissed and feel betrayed by everyone who argued for it and the majority will be screaming in unison for an increase.

And if it works as claimed, at least it will ease the congestion for a little while before we start the whole sordid song and dance again.  So the question is, how confident are you that you're right?

Math today != Math tomorrow

Be patient grasshoppah

I only say: BU isn't secure due to the untested security model revamp called "emergent consensus"-

People don't want to waste their time on reviewing BU, when it doesn't even have it's own proper testing and review system.

2 MB base and 6 MB weight would maybe work. Segwit should be added as a soft fork and the block size increase as a HF. There is no proposal that does this though.

LN doesn't need Segwit.  

Nonsense. If you allow un-pegging, LN is dead in its in conception.

If you approach it with this mind set, the same is what you should say for BU.

So @rusty_lightning is a liar?  And he's lying through his teeth?  And that's pathetic?

Could be.  Or maybe you're just being hysterical because you can't stop Lightning.   

I'm sorry you don't understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security, but Honey Badger doesn't care one bit.

If you think that BU is a simple change, or secure, you've been drinking some strong kool-aid. If I had to choose outside of Bitcoin Core, I'd go with the original Bitcoin Classic proposal (rather than the current Classic/BU nonsense).

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

I wasn't specifically referring to LN, but any kind of 2nd layer solution. That question shouldn't even be asked. Everything can be hacked.

Find me an implementation that does this change whilst safely covering for quadratic hashing with limitations? Right, there isn't one. There is something which is untested, unreviewed and which does a security 180 degree flip called "emergent consensus".

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. Changes which provide on-chain scaling are the most insecure, as you can break the protocol. If you break some 2nd layer, the main protocol will remain functional.

He will have to play with it on LTC testnet, the LTC miners are not going to allow segwit either.
It is less than 10% activated on their network.

Chinese dominate BTC & LTC, they are not going to agree for a competing service to steal their transactions fees.  

 

Sorry, cupcake.  Not impressed.  Some of us went to school for this stuff...   

I'll see your Shannon and raise you Kolmogorov.  Don't make me break out Wiener and Von Neumann on you.

LN *is* Bitcoin, so it uses the same amount of energy for security.

Your failure to understand how Lightning inherits Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

Educate yourself, then come back when you're ready to play with the big kids.

Here, I'll even spoon feed you like a baby to accelerate the bootstrapping process.


See?  Lightning is 100% Bitcoin.  It's just a clever way to efficiently arrange blockchain writes, yielding massive gains in effective TPS.

Lightning isn't Layer 2, if that's what you're afraid of.  Think of it as layer 1.5 and maybe that might help you understand using spatial intuition.

Lightning tx are trustless.  They are not some idiotic trusted 3rd party solution like Dash's Masternodes.

Interesting that you bring the F word into it when I didn't.



You are trolling, plain and simple. And no-one's interested

Yes, sure, as If I have nothing better to do with my time than to spread propaganda or whatever you think I am doing.

No. I am just too long in bitcoin, and don't want it to fail. And I know exactly how flawed can solutions be, if they come as an argument from authority.

If you had read my previous post, you would have seen that my criticism is merited. People do make mistakes, or do have malicious intent.

And the people having malicious intent might pose as saviors. I can guarantee you I have no malicious intent toward bitcoin, as I said I am an old bitcoiner.

But if people fuck up bitcoin with shitty uppgrades, then we will all lose, and who will you blame then?

If bitcoin is to survive, then users need to be open minded, and not call everyone a shill or a troll.

Otherwise this is just an echo chamber or ignorant people. I find it insulting to call me a shill, when all I do is question arguments from authority.

This only goes to show how determined the forces aligned against Bitcoin are: RealBitcoin is a pretty old account, and yet the account only turned into an anti-Bitcoin propaganda merchant in the last few months.


If you read about intelligence/espionage practices, this is a common strategy; it is effective because foolish people believe it when the agent refutes the allegation thusly: "Deep cover, for X NUMBER OF YEARS? You're paranoid/that's ridiculous". To increase effectiveness, increase the value of X.

Traders need volatility.