.

[Lauda]

Oops - sorry about that, thought it was a new topic.  Any idea when this could be implemented?

That depends; hopefully never in the way it was proposed (network split into 3/4 and 1/4). One could argue that the miners could rush it pretty quickly, but the question is what are the side-effects of this? How much harm does it actually do? I can't really tell you what is going to happen exactly.

[franky1]

i said PROCESSING TIME..

I never talked about processing time, I was always talking about validation time and thus your idiocy is astounding. Clever move though, I didn't even read that one properly. So even the assumption is wrong.

i mentioned processing time first.. you replied after with a totally different buzzword..
so how can i be the one that was wrong.. am i psychic to know what you would say next??

accept defeat we both know segwits processing time is due to libsecp256k1, which is not a special feature limited only to blockstream.

im still trying to get around how you getting my words wrong.. by your own confusion. is my fault.. either im psychic, or your just wrong

[ldrapeau]

The beauty of humanity, no one really know's what's going to happen - just fun to watch and do our best with what ever happens - Good luck to all

[Minecache]

You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.

[franky1]

You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.

mining rigs dont read forums. they just hash.. as long as they continue to hash, blocks will still be made. bitcoin will still continue.
if you mean the human loss of trust that bitcoin (the currency) is safe as a long term store of value, because the currency may decrease in value due to human emotion..
well know one knows what the future holds.
there are a million different speculative reasons for the price to go up or down

[MicroGuy]

You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.

I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler? Maybe too many thought the 'bickering' wasn't worth the trouble.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. If anything, it will be silence that spells the death of bitcoin - not the voices of concern.

[marky89]

You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.

I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler?

Just so we are clear, who exactly is "Hitler" in this context?

[jbreher]

Doing both seems ok to me but does contradict the wisdom of only making one change at a time.  Can we change one and then a little later the other or is there some compelling reason to do them at the same time?

The SegWit Omnibus is already several significant independent changes being rolled out as a single release.

[jbreher]

More decentralized? I have not stated this. I have stated that LN is decentralized and secure which is correct; you can't be the judge of this because you don't have a technical background as you've said, right? If anything Bitcoin will be very centralized if we focus on scaling via the block size. You can't deny this.

No. As I have pointed out to you before, with SegWit, all nodes that want to operate in a trustless manner require processing the signature chain as well as the 'blockchain-minus'. There is NO efficiency gain for a node operating in a trustless manner. What you call 'efficiency gain of SegWit' is only achievable by nodes that must trust other nodes to perform validation for them.

As such, SegWit does nothing for the centralization issue.

[Sir Lagsalot]

You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.

I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler? Maybe too many thought the 'bickering' wasn't worth the trouble.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. If anything, it will be silence that spells the death of bitcoin - not the voices of concern.

You Godwin the thread, bro.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.

I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler? Maybe too many thought the 'bickering' wasn't worth the trouble.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. If anything, it will be silence that spells the death of bitcoin - not the voices of concern.

You Godwin the thread, bro.

Threads should automatically lock when Godwin's Law is broken. It should be part of the software.

[Lauda]

No. As I have pointed out to you before, with SegWit, all nodes that want to operate in a trustless manner require processing the signature chain as well as the 'blockchain-minus'. There is NO efficiency gain for a node operating in a trustless manner. What you call 'efficiency gain of SegWit' is only achievable by nodes that must trust other nodes to perform validation for them.

As such, SegWit does nothing for the centralization issue.

You quoted a post of mine related to LN and talk about Segwit? If you want to have a proper discussion join us at IRC; this toxic environment is fruitless and I don't even see half the posts in the thread anymore.

Threads should automatically lock when Godwin's Law is broken. It should be part of the software.

Suggest it for the new forum.

[franky1]

More decentralized? I have not stated this. I have stated that LN is decentralized and secure which is correct; you can't be the judge of this because you don't have a technical background as you've said, right? If anything Bitcoin will be very centralized if we focus on scaling via the block size. You can't deny this.

lauda fails again.
1. lightning network hasnt even been created yet, so how can he be sure its decentralized and secure? (time for lauda to go to IRC to be corrected (again))
2. lightning network has nothing to do with blocksize, but segwit does portray itself as the solution to the blocksize.

so when jbreher answers the question to scaling blocksize, it makes sense to talk about segwit

No. As I have pointed out to you before, with SegWit, all nodes that want to operate in a trustless manner require processing the signature chain as well as the 'blockchain-minus'. There is NO efficiency gain for a node operating in a trustless manner. What you call 'efficiency gain of SegWit' is only achievable by nodes that must trust other nodes to perform validation for them.

As such, SegWit does nothing for the centralization issue.

+1 jbreher
-1 Lauda

[mexxer-2]

You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.

I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler? Maybe too many thought the 'bickering' wasn't worth the trouble.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. If anything, it will be silence that spells the death of bitcoin - not the voices of concern.

You Godwin the thread, bro.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

Ha, surprise surprise

[Carlton Banks]

accept defeat we both know segwits processing time is due to libsecp256k1, which is not a special feature limited only to blockstream.

lol Franky, are you acting like you know what's going on again? *yawn*

Both SegWit and libsecp256k1 improve the performance of signature verification, in different ways. Where do you get all the time to do all this posting and photoshopping, Franky, everything alright at home?

[jbreher]

No. As I have pointed out to you before, with SegWit, all nodes that want to operate in a trustless manner require processing the signature chain as well as the 'blockchain-minus'. There is NO efficiency gain for a node operating in a trustless manner. What you call 'efficiency gain of SegWit' is only achievable by nodes that must trust other nodes to perform validation for them.

As such, SegWit does nothing for the centralization issue.

You quoted a post of mine related to LN and talk about Segwit? If you want to have a proper discussion join us at IRC; this toxic environment is fruitless and I don't even see half the posts in the thread anymore.

Sorry. Got my signals crossed.

Though this thread in entirety is entitled Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal!. Seems relevant. That, and I did reply directly to a point you made about "block size".

To return to your side branch, though, perhaps you can tell me in what manner you think LN contributes to decentralization. The way I see it, it will inevitably end up a hub/spoke system - meaning more centralization. Also with node and path discovery being mediated by (other?) centralized actors.

[Carlton Banks]

perhaps you can tell me in what manner you think LN contributes to decentralization. The way I see it, it will inevitably end up a hub/spoke system - meaning more centralization. Also with node and path discovery being mediated by (other?) centralized actors.

I agree, although I think it's not the correct to say that the overall network topology will be be more centralised, just that one task the network performs will be divided into 2 layers (the miners on one layer finalising tx's, lightning hubs one layer below setting all the transactions up). And it's pretty much true that miners and exchanges could easily become the dominant players in lightning hubs, but it can't stay that way forever, because neither exchanges or miners will be around in large numbers 20 years from now.

tl;dr all Lightning does is split the transaction market up, not much point complaining that the same big Bitcoin companies will get all the business, because they do already now.

[VeritasSapere]

perhaps you can tell me in what manner you think LN contributes to decentralization. The way I see it, it will inevitably end up a hub/spoke system - meaning more centralization. Also with node and path discovery being mediated by (other?) centralized actors.

I agree, although I think it's not the correct to say that the overall network topology will be be more centralised, just that one task the network performs will be divided into 2 layers (the miners on one layer finalising tx's, lightning hubs one layer below setting all the transactions up). And it's pretty much true that miners and exchanges could easily become the dominant players in lightning hubs, but it can't stay that way forever, because neither exchanges or miners will be around in large numbers 20 years from now.

tl;dr all Lightning does is split the transaction market up, not much point complaining that the same big Bitcoin companies will get all the business, because they do already now.

This would also take transaction fees away from the miners. I have nothing against the lighting network, even if it ends up being highly centralized. However it should not be regarded as a replacement for the every day transactions we do on the Bitcoin blockchain today. I also find your idea that the exchanges and miners will not be around in large numbers twenty years from now very strange. I suppose if we moved most of the transactions off chain that would be true. However if we do scale Bitcoin by increasing the blocksize I see the mining power of the network continue to grow as its value grows providing greater security for the entire network.

Today we are not reliant on third parties to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly and cheaply. It is not true to say that there would not be any difference under the model you propose, since in the model you propose there will be companies making money of transactions when before most of these fees where reserved for the miners, increasing overall network security, which arguably your proposed model does not.

[Lauda]

Today we are not reliant on third parties to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly and cheaply.

Your lack a lot of knowledge. The majority of people rely on third parties today. Anyone who does not use a full node (e.g. online wallets) relies on a third party. Online wallets are the worst though, users don't even have access to any private keys. Increasing the block size limit makes it harder not to rely on third parties.

This would also take transaction fees away from the miners.

No.

I have nothing against the lighting network, even if it ends up being highly centralized.

You do.

However it should not be regarded as a replacement for the every day transactions we do on the Bitcoin blockchain today.

Creating a second layer does not replace anything, it supplements the system. Should I tell you how the internet functions on 7 layers and probably never would properly function on 1?

I suppose if we moved most of the transactions off chain that would be true.

There's no correlation between his statement and off-chain transactions.

However if we do scale Bitcoin by increasing the blocksize I see the mining power of the network continue to grow as its value grows providing greater security for the entire network.

Or the network experiences more centralization, higher orphan rates and possibly an attack. Stop looking at the 'best case' scenarios, we need to be prepared for the worst ones deal with tricky situations.

[VeritasSapere]

Today we are not reliant on third parties to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly and cheaply.

Your lack a lot of knowledge. The majority of people rely on third parties today. Anyone who does not use a full node (e.g. online wallets) relies on a third party. Online wallets are the worst though, users don't even have access to any private keys. Increasing the block size limit makes it harder not to rely on third parties.

I think it is the other way around, not increasing the blocksize makes it harder not to rely on third parties, at least with SPV wallets we do still regain control of our private keys. Not increasing the blocksize leads to much higher transaction costs while making transacting directly on the Bitcoin network also much more unreliable. Increasing the blocksize leads to a marginal increase in the cost of running a full node, especially with the increase we are discussing here to two megabyte is unlikely to have a significant effect on node count. I think increased adoption will actually help with the node count and an increased blocksize helps facilitate that.

This would also take transaction fees away from the miners.

No.

I think this is a fact, by lumping transactions together less fees need to be payed overall. This is one of the fundemental principles behind the lighting network after all.

I have nothing against the lighting network, even if it ends up being highly centralized.

You do.

I have nothing against the lighting network as long as it is not used as a reason to restrict the main Bitcoin blockchain. I think we should scale Bitcoin directly and if people still choose to use the lighting network instead then that is fine, then we would not need to increase the blocksize again. That is different to making the decision now for everyone what they should use by restricting the blocksize, allowing the people and the market to choose for themselves I think is the better solution, and in reality is exactly what will happen.

However it should not be regarded as a replacement for the every day transactions we do on the Bitcoin blockchain today.

Creating a second layer does not replace anything, it supplements the system. Should I tell you how the internet functions on 7 layers and probably never would properly function on 1?

I do not think that layer one of the internet was unnecessarily and arbitrarily restricted in order to strengthen the other layers. Furthermore layer one, so to speak still remains the most important and most used part of the internet.

I suppose if we moved most of the transactions off chain that would be true.

There's no correlation between his statement and off-chain transactions.

These statements absolutely do have a correlation by moving transactions off chain we are depriving miners from potential fees.

However if we do scale Bitcoin by increasing the blocksize I see the mining power of the network continue to grow as its value grows providing greater security for the entire network.

Or the network experiences more centralization, higher orphan rates and possibly an attack. Stop looking at the 'best case' scenarios, we need to be prepared for the worst ones deal with tricky situations.

And you should stop fear mongering, increasing the blocksize to two megabyte will not be catastrophic in anyway. That you are even mentioning orphan rates at two megabytes is ridiculous and just reveals that you do not have any proper criticisms of such an increase, its not like segwit in all of its complexity presents less risk?