Total garbage, Franky.
You're basically trying to tell us that on one hand SegWit doesn't provide 4MB, and yet on the other hand, the old nodes won't have access to the data that you say doesn't even properly exist! It can't be both.
it can be both..
segwit has 2 modes
default: dont send witness (<1mb data)
archival: send witness to implementations able to send the parameter to ask to be archival.(>1mb data)
old nodes
do not have the parameter to ask to be archival so all they get is the default no witness <1mb crap
so as i said.
old nodes cut off from being full nodes as they can no longer check data..(without upgrading to be segwit complient)
segwit miners will want full data so they will be set to archival mode and thus they will pretend to only be getting 1mb of data, but will get more data. which goes against the blockstream shills rhetoric who have said china dont want to upgrade to 2mb rule, due to chinas fire wall not handling more than 1mb data (which i disagree with) or the rhetoric that storing more then 1mb data would require data centres
*..(again disagree with)
so how is full archival miners magically not going to have firewall problems or need data centres.. like the doomsday myth rhetoric blockstream shills say would happen with a 2mb cap??
whats next.. only have transaction IDs in the "main" block.. and the actual data and signatures in a subblock.. to again have the illusion of more transactions per megabite, this time 12000tx-16000tx(instead of 6000-8000 by just shifting signatures to the side).. similar to SPV only asking for headers, but where real life actual full data is alot more (6mb-8mb instead of 2mb-4mb)
i do find it funny that lauda put me on ignore just minutes after HE got proved wrong when asking bitcoin-devs in IRC.. even weeks after saying he himself actually spoke to them alot back then.. yet the IRC conversation just a few days ago showed lauda lacked basic understanding.. and got proved wrong by the dev team saying the same things that i have been saying for a month..
it made me laugh even more that rather then learning indepth and understanding to then make a coherant rebuttle using
real facts, real case scenario's.. all you blockstream shills can do is just say "you are wrong".. without getting into the detail of why, you just write waffle to twist words i said to show you didnt even understand what i was saying.
you dont use logic or examples of how it actually works. which makes you not helpful either.. if you want to prove someone wrong.. use detail, use proper explanations, use case scenario examples. quotes, etc
i sincerely do hope you get rich quick with your Liquid investments and move on with your lives.. as it seems something is causing you to get blinded by logic and enlightened only by the ass kissing and secret profiteering you may have been promised. maybe after yo get rich then your biased minds can settle down and concentrate on the community needs rather then blockstreams plans
* incase any blockstream shills pretend they never said that 2mb is bad because it would end up in centralisation and datacenters of super computers, rather than ordinary people
Exactly my point - and if you keep on repeating that change (getting bigger and bigger) then finally the amount of time to even verify all the signatures in your megablocks in 10 minutes will be beyond the capabilities of 99% of the computing hardware available.
Now that would be centralisation!
If we tried to scale Bitcoin by just increasing the block size then basically only a few huge data centers in the world would be able to even verify such gigantic blocks in ten minutes.
well how is segwit archival (real data over 1mb) not the same problem!!
have a nice day
