Schnorr + Taproot Soft Fork and What this Means to Bitcoin

[hv_]

franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.

The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.

take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1.
oh look
so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most
no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves

have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits

oh and one last thing..

You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF

if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks.
the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin'
** = both UC and OR

UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'.
core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff

Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out.

Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol

[Wind_FURY]

franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.

The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.

take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1.
oh look
so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most
no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves

have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits

I believe to avoid confusion, "scaling" should be defined clearly. Is it to increase utility, or to let a decentralized network grow?

My debate is improve network latency, to let the network scale out/grow.

You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF

if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks.
the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin'
** = both UC and OR

UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'.
core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff

I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.

[DooMAD]

MAST also sounds like part of the package, so although it's not a huge change, it's a stepping stone to other features and shouldn't be overlooked.

I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.

Just to point out that he's now banned from the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, so it's not worth getting into a huge back-and-forth with him around technical matters, as tempting as it might be.  He's clearly not interested in an honest debate.  Also, this topic isn't about the pros and cons of UASF, so let's keep it to discussion of Schnorr and Taproot.

[Wind_FURY]

MAST also sounds like part of the package, so although it's not a huge change, it's a stepping stone to other features and shouldn't be overlooked.

I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.

Just to point out that he's now banned from the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, so it's not worth getting into a huge back-and-forth with him around technical matters, as tempting as it might be.  He's clearly not interested in an honest debate.  Also, this topic isn't about the pros and cons of UASF, so let's keep it to discussion of Schnorr and Taproot.

Haha. I'll try.

I like annoying him, and causing him to make all those long techno-babbly posts. Plus newbies should always know the truth after each lie.

franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.

The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.

take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1.
oh look
so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most
no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves

have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits

oh and one last thing..

You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF

if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks.
the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin'
** = both UC and OR

UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'.
core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff

Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out.

Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol

The ticker? If Bitcoin Cash SV was given the BTC ticker, it would become "Bitcoin"?

[hv_]

MAST also sounds like part of the package, so although it's not a huge change, it's a stepping stone to other features and shouldn't be overlooked.

I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.

Just to point out that he's now banned from the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, so it's not worth getting into a huge back-and-forth with him around technical matters, as tempting as it might be.  He's clearly not interested in an honest debate.  Also, this topic isn't about the pros and cons of UASF, so let's keep it to discussion of Schnorr and Taproot.

Haha. I'll try.

I like annoying him, and causing him to make all those long techno-babbly posts. Plus newbies should always know the truth after each lie.

franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.

The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.

take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1.
oh look
so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most
no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves

have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits

oh and one last thing..

You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF

if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks.
the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin'
** = both UC and OR

UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'.
core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff

Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out.

Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol

The ticker? If Bitcoin Cash SV was given the BTC ticker, it would become "Bitcoin"?

Was Bitcoin NOT Bitcoin before it got a ticker ? 

BTW First ticker I remember was just  BC.

so - utterly nonsense to try define Bitcoin by a poor ticker.

Where is it defined ?  From the very start ?

[Wind_FURY]

MAST also sounds like part of the package, so although it's not a huge change, it's a stepping stone to other features and shouldn't be overlooked.

I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.

Just to point out that he's now banned from the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, so it's not worth getting into a huge back-and-forth with him around technical matters, as tempting as it might be.  He's clearly not interested in an honest debate.  Also, this topic isn't about the pros and cons of UASF, so let's keep it to discussion of Schnorr and Taproot.

Haha. I'll try.

I like annoying him, and causing him to make all those long techno-babbly posts. Plus newbies should always know the truth after each lie.

franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.

The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.

take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1.
oh look
so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most
no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves

have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits

oh and one last thing..

You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF

if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks.
the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin'
** = both UC and OR

UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'.
core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff

Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out.

Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol

The ticker? If Bitcoin Cash SV was given the BTC ticker, it would become "Bitcoin"?

Was Bitcoin NOT Bitcoin before it got a ticker ?  

BTW First ticker I remember was just  BC.

so - utterly nonsense to try define Bitcoin by a poor ticker.

Where is it defined ?  From the very start ?

Correct! Kraken calls Bitcoin "XBT", and other exchanges could start to call it "BC", give Bitcoin Cash SV the "BTC" ticker, and SV STILL would not be Bitcoin.

[hv_]

MAST also sounds like part of the package, so although it's not a huge change, it's a stepping stone to other features and shouldn't be overlooked.

I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.

Just to point out that he's now banned from the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, so it's not worth getting into a huge back-and-forth with him around technical matters, as tempting as it might be.  He's clearly not interested in an honest debate.  Also, this topic isn't about the pros and cons of UASF, so let's keep it to discussion of Schnorr and Taproot.

Haha. I'll try.

I like annoying him, and causing him to make all those long techno-babbly posts. Plus newbies should always know the truth after each lie.

franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.

The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.

take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1.
oh look
so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most
no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves

have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits

oh and one last thing..

You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF

if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks.
the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin'
** = both UC and OR

UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'.
core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff

Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out.

Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol

The ticker? If Bitcoin Cash SV was given the BTC ticker, it would become "Bitcoin"?

Was Bitcoin NOT Bitcoin before it got a ticker ?  

BTW First ticker I remember was just  BC.

so - utterly nonsense to try define Bitcoin by a poor ticker.

Where is it defined ?  From the very start ?

Correct! Kraken calls Bitcoin "XBT", and other exchanges could start to call it "BC", give Bitcoin Cash SV the "BTC" ticker, and SV STILL would not be Bitcoin.

we agree:  for you