95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead.

[charmingfreddie]

If bitcoin forks over block size it will be very bad for the entire community because it will scare merchants away. They will always wonder what will happen next but that looks like that is where we are headed sooner or later.

[RawDog]

If bitcoin forks over block size it will be very bad for the entire community because it will scare merchants away. They will always wonder what will happen next but that looks like that is where we are headed sooner or later.

There are essentially no merchants to scare away.  The grand total commerce done at the merchant level today is so close to zero you wouldn't believe it.  If anything scares merchants is Bitcoin's .40c 'swipe fees'.  Transaction fees are now way beyond levels tolerable for retail use.  But G. Maxwell wants to eliminate retail/merchant uses and just make it a settlement network. 

Fork - to start SegWit and fork to start LN.  Those a really cool systems - go do your fucking fork.  But leave Bitcoin alone.  Bitcoin anticipated big blocks from the beginning.  Put the blocksize limit at 8MB.  Then, anyone like GMaxwell who gets a bright idea about starting a really cool cryptocurrency with a bunch of added features can just introduce that on a fork.  Merchants won't care one bit.  They might even love it and get on that fork.  

G Maxwell uniquely believes he is entitled to start his altcoin on the bitcoin blockchain and all others should go do their forks somewhere else.  G Maxwell thinks because he controls commit access, that he gets to decide what is right for bitcoin.  SegWit and LN are altcoins.  They don't belong on the main chain.  8MB is fully accounted for in the original version of Bitcoin.  

[MoinCoin]

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

Something is clear: nobody cares about Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and now Bitcoin Unlimited. We all know that Core is the way to go if you still want to have your BTC 10 years from now. The conservative approach is the only way to guarantee the system works in the long term. The rest can keep dreaming about their amateur software that has been proven wrong a million times already.
Sorry, but conservative blocksize + LN is objectively the best we got. Keep trying if you want something better, for now its what we have.

Can't follow you.
I'm glad XT did not succeed.
I still think we need more scaling than segwit and schnorr would provide on layer 1, but XT was too extreme.
But: Classic is not dead, Bitcoin Unlimited support is steadily growing (hashrate, nodes) see https://coin.dance/blocks/ or https://slushpool.com/stats/

LN is awesome, but I would not want to have a huge amount of BTC in open channels due to security considerations.
What if your device gets hacked?
AFAIK you cannot have your channel redeem address set to an offline address, because then you could not sign the punishment transaction, which is needed for working 2-way channels.
Also you have to be online to receive LN transactions.
And then, sadly, LN is not yet functional.
We need working and user friendly software, and then the network has to develop (user and merchant adoption).
How long will it take to be usable for everyday transactions? 1-3 years?

There may be other solutions.
Trustless sidechains would be nice, but there is currently not enough progress.
Therefore i think, we will still need a lot of layer 1 transactions, especially if LN will open channels on top of layer 1 blocks and not on sidechains.
Did not hear much about extension blocks lately. What happened there?

[rizzlarolla]

Your right RawDog but don't worry, Satoshi designed bitcoin to withstand such attacks as segwit, Gmax and core.
(and classic or unlimited if they also think that they own Bitcoin if when we fork to bigger blocks)
That is why Bitcoin has value.

[MoinCoin]

Segwit currently at 54%..

http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/services.html

Thats about as much as % user votes on slushpool.

https://slushpool.com/stats/

25 % Don't care
31 % Bitcoin core

Both will be mined as segwit afaik

Wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of ppl running Bitcoin Core nodes which don't care would be even higer.

Something is clear: nobody cares about Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, and now Bitcoin Unlimited. We all know that Core is the way to go if you still want to have your BTC 10 years from now. The conservative approach is the only way to guarantee the system works in the long term. The rest can keep dreaming about their amateur software that has been proven wrong a million times already.
Sorry, but conservative blocksize + LN is objectively the best we got. Keep trying if you want something better, for now its what we have.

That asshat GMaxwell should just go fork his altcoin if he wants silly new protocols like SegWit and LN.  Why does he have to destroy the bitcoin blockchain in pushing his Blockstream owned and controlled LN?  

SegWit = big protocol changes = altcoin
LN = big protocol changes = altcoin

BU - just put the blocksize back to where it was in the beginning.  Same protocol!!!! = Bitcoin!!

How is LN a protocol change?

We will get LN one way or the other, because it only needs a a malleability fix (segwit, flex-trans, BIP 140, whatever) to work , whether if we segwit-sf or unlimted-style-hardfork and then fix malleability.
I'm happy as long as I'm not forced (and that strictly includes fees > 1 USD for a median-sized transaction) to only use LN.

BU withouth malleability fix would have no significance (adoption, price, fees, decentralization) compared to its competitor in the long run (5 years+), as would Core without more than schnorr and segwit IMHO, in case the network splits.

I cannot see other decentralized off-chain/microtransaction solutions succeed.
Then we already have Coinbase off-chain transactions.
And i don't think enough users and merchants are comfortable with Teechan.
Pretty much nobody (compared to LN) wants to use 1way sidechains. They are already available from 21co.

[RawDog]

We will get LN one way or the other,

Not true.  There is absolutely no need for LN if we have 8MB blocks.  That is why Blockstream tries to convince everyone that centralization will come if we go to larger blocks.  They desperately need some reasoning to force the congestion so there will be demand for their stupid solution which is totally unneeded in a world where blocks are 8MB. 

[MoinCoin]

We will get LN one way or the other,

Not true.  There is absolutely no need for LN if we have 8MB blocks.  That is why Blockstream tries to convince everyone that centralization will come if we go to larger blocks.  They desperately need some reasoning to force the congestion so there will be demand for their stupid solution which is totally unneeded in a world where blocks are 8MB.  

I don't think that 8 MB is even enough for the mid-term (3-5 years).  
Thats only 25 T/s and not even close to what we would need with mass adoption as a p2p electronic cash system.
Or don't you want bitcoin as a p2p electronic cash system?
IMHO we'll probably need blocks with more than 8 MB block capacity even if we would use LN to keep fees and decentralization at the current level.


Edit:
Which client do you want to use?
BU will support Ligthning https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-unlimited-developer-andrew-stone/
Classic will support Lightning (flextrans)
Core will support Lightning

You seem pretty alone with your opinion, as far as i can tell from reading the bitcoin forums and reddits (/r/btc /r/bitcoin)
If blocks are big enough you don't have to use Lightning, but why not?

But without LN i guess we'd need at least need 1GB Blocks

[franky1]

But without LN i guess we'd need at least need 1GB Blocks

oh shut up with your 1gb blocks.
seems you are spending too much time in blockstreams cabin fever box, listening to all their advertisements and doomsdays. agreeing with them because your locked in a box where its only them talking.

lets set your record straight because it sounds like its bent out of shape and just repeating the same tune of other people in a loop

1. bitcoin will not be the one world currency of 7billion..
2. it will be a free open decentralised network (onchain) but not all 7billion will use it and not all at the same time. it will/should remain a free open choice. not something people are forced to use with no other assets to hold their eggs in different baskets

ok now take todays rational 2million regular users. 0.026% population

and think of a rational number of users it will achieve in 50 years.
hint it wont be anywhere near 100%

lets say it was 5% of world finance. (making it the top 5 reserve 'nation' of the world)

thats over 50 years.. not by midnight tonight by the way.

so in 50 years is only 100mb block.. again not 100mb tonight.. but in 50 years

meaning 2mb growth a year or doubling every 7 years

both of which are achievable and manageable.

after all looking at the technology growth over the last 2 decades. i think people will laugh in 50 years that we are worried about 100mb blocks
just like we laugh at people just 20 years ago getting excited about having 32mb ram and 4gb hard drives, back then thinking that was huge. where they back then would worry about 128gb storage. and we are laughing by holding something the size of a fingernail

again dont think "world domination by midnight" think rationally realistically naturally and sensibly.

[RawDog]

again dont think "world domination by midnight" think rationally realistically naturally and sensibly.

lol - if they did that, they wouldn't be core supporters and there would be nothing to argue about here.

[MoinCoin]

But without LN i guess we'd need at least need 1GB Blocks

oh shut up with your 1gb blocks.
seems you are spending too much time in blockstreams cabin fever box, listening to all their advertisements and doomsdays. agreeing with them because your locked in a box where its only them talking.

lets set your record straight because it sounds like its bent out of shape and just repeating the same tune of other people in a loop

1. bitcoin will not be the one world currency of 7billion..
2. it will be a free open decentralised network (onchain) but not all 7billion will use it and not all at the same time. it will/should remain a free open choice. not something people are forced to use with no other assets to hold their eggs in different baskets

ok now take todays rational 2million regular users. 0.026% population

Yeah 1 GB was a pretty high number.

So then lets guess what we'd actually need in the foreseeable future.
In the last 2 years transactions per day have more than tripled, and IMHO would have quadrupled, if we had increased the block size.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all

Thats about x2 per year. So 8 MB would give us 3 years, if we'd continue on this path.
Even if adoption would slow down, so we'd double every 2 years, thats only 6 years.

But i think the adoption rate would even increase if we'd have bigger blocks, so this may give us only 1.5 years.

8 MB would be about 250,000 * 8 = 2 million transactions per day, or 60 million transactions per month
Today i rarely use on-chain transactions, because I think they are already to expensive.

If I use EUR, I can send any amount for free (SEPA, CASH) or even get money as a consumer.
I'd change my behaviour, if bitcoin transactions would be cheaper and also if there be more counterparties, which would accept bitcoin.

If cheaper, I'd do somewhere between 10 and 30 transactions per month.
Lets say everyone do just 5 transactions per month, then the network would cap at 60 million / 5 = 12 million users on 8 MB.

With schnorr and other engineering that even may double to 24 million.
So with 32 MB we could support about 100 million users.

8 MB is only 400 GB / year, which i think is acceptable with current technology, therefore I run Bitcoin Unlimited with EB 8 / AD 6, which does not make me totally happy, but would be the best compromise for me personally.
Because we'd have a bigger user base if those blocks were fully utilized, some new nodes would appear, some old would disappear, because they deem it to expensive to run, but overall decentralization could stay roughly the same with 8 MB.

8 MB would give us enough time to deploy the LN without forcing people off the network, where as I'm not convinced segwit and schnorr would be enough.

I'm personally even okay with 32 MB, if I could use bitcoin for virtually anything. I'd probably run a pruned node then. If we'd adopt a well used layer two solution, than it would take some time to fill up more than 8 MB blockspace and even running an unpruned node may be cheap in 10-20 years with 32 MB blocksize / blockweight to stay decentralized.

I don't even think 32 MB will be a high a risk for miners, regarding orphanage, because there is still a lot of progress in onchain scaling (Xthin, weak blocks, pre-verified transactions). When time comes I'm optimistic that today's problems would be solved.

But to use it in your everyday live, you'd probably need at least 1 tx per day.
With 100 million users (which is what I think is reasonable number for mass adoption) that would give us 3 billion transactions per month, or 400 MB standard blocks (7.5 milion transactions per month on 1 MB), not far off from 1 GB, which I don't think would be unrealistic in 30+ years.

And If you don't want to convert bitcoin into a banking like centralized, trust based system, we will still need a decentralized layer on top of the blocks. LN is currently the most promising IMHO.
E. g. XAPO charges about 2.5 to 3.5% (via low sell price) on its EUR debit card, and I don't know any cheaper solutions for everyday shopping.

That said:
Segwit is currently dead
We need more blockspace anyway
And we need a malleability fix to enable bidirectional payment channels to use bitcoin in everyday transactions

[jbreher]

What I learned today, after reading this 115-post long thread:

1) Wallets implementing The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., Core 0.13.1 and 0.13.2) do not create SegWit transactions (reeeeallly? WTF!? that itself seems a red flag)
2) There is no 2.

That said, I'll leave all y'all with one parting thought: 1MB 4EVA (even extended by the accounting legerdemain that is the SegWit accounting magik) is not enough upon which any sizable LN network needs to open and close channels.

[Amph]

How do you get 5% to deny segwit? I like this, it is soft fork, I don't wanna see hard fork on bitcoin, it is harmful and may damage bitcoin's price

you get 95% to allow it any other % is denying it, hardfork are inevitable, even miners are pro 2MB but not 4mb or 8mb, well soem of them are pro one of those

they are just buying time for a better solution, but we can not wait forever that is guaranteed

[Shawshank]

LN is awesome, but I would not want to have a huge amount of BTC in open channels due to security considerations.
What if your device gets hacked?

No problem, it would be possible to create a Lightning channel with a 3-3 multisignature funding transaction. You own one address on your device and your other address works as two-factor-authorization.

[Minecache]

To all you fucktards criticising SegWit and LN so why don't you come up and propose alternative solutions to Bitcoins problems? Because it has serious problems on the horizon. Not least because of fucktards like yourselves sitting behind your keyboards moaning. Oh yeah I forgot, you're all thick as mince.

[MoinCoin]

LN is awesome, but I would not want to have a huge amount of BTC in open channels due to security considerations.
What if your device gets hacked?

No problem, it would be possible to create a Lightning channel with a 3-3 multisignature funding transaction. You own one address on your device and your other address works as two-factor-authorization.

But how can you then sign the punishment transaction, when you received and sent money through the same channel?
Do you have some link?

To revoke the previous state of the channel both participants have to sign the spending of the outputs of the previous state of the channel to prevent cheating don't you? (or give your private key to the other party)

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 24

What i called punishment transaction is called Breach Remedy in the paper?

Edit: Do we even need segwit / malleability fix for LN, if you could instead just hand over your private key for the Breach Remedy? It does not matter that much if the commitment transaction gets malleated, does it?

[Shawshank]

LN is awesome, but I would not want to have a huge amount of BTC in open channels due to security considerations.
What if your device gets hacked?

No problem, it would be possible to create a Lightning channel with a 3-3 multisignature funding transaction. You own one address on your device and your other address works as two-factor-authorization.

But how can you then sign the punishment transaction, when you received and sent money through the same channel?
Do you have some link?

To revoke the previous state of the channel both participants have to sign the spending of the outputs of the previous state of the channel to prevent cheating don't you?

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 24

What i called punishment transaction is called Breach Remedy in the paper

Instead of using P2PKH addresses for Alice and Bob (addresses starting with 1), as stated in the Lightning Network paper, imagine that Alice and/or Bob use 2-2 multisignature P2SH addresses (addresses starting with 3). That's is how you can perform 2-factor-authorization for Alice and/or Bob.

[spartacusrex]

To all you fucktards criticising SegWit and LN so why don't you come up and propose alternative solutions to Bitcoins problems? Because it has serious problems on the horizon. Not least because of fucktards like yourselves sitting behind your keyboards moaning.

Wow.. I never thought I 'd say this (don't usually see you in this part of the world-as-we-know-it)... but I agree with MineCache.. {weird feeling}

( Although I choose not to use profanity.. you silly-billys.. )

[MoinCoin]

LN is awesome, but I would not want to have a huge amount of BTC in open channels due to security considerations.
What if your device gets hacked?

No problem, it would be possible to create a Lightning channel with a 3-3 multisignature funding transaction. You own one address on your device and your other address works as two-factor-authorization.

But how can you then sign the punishment transaction, when you received and sent money through the same channel?
Do you have some link?

To revoke the previous state of the channel both participants have to sign the spending of the outputs of the previous state of the channel to prevent cheating don't you?

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 24

What i called punishment transaction is called Breach Remedy in the paper

Instead of using P2PKH addresses for Alice and Bob (addresses starting with 1), as stated in the Lightning Network paper, imagine that Alice and/or Bob use 2-2 multisignature P2SH addresses (addresses starting with 3). That's is how you can perform 2-factor-authorization for Alice and/or Bob.

Thank you for your reply.
I still think LN is the best solution out there, but I'm not able to completely follow your train of thought.
For which transaction multisig?

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 26 and 27

If desired, but not necessary, both
parties may update and change PAliceD and PBobD for future Commitment Transactions.

A hacker of Alice could change PAliceD to PHackerD.
Of course he would have access to KHackerD
So having a multisig address (PAliceD + PAliceDOffline) instead of simple PAliceD would not suffice.
Would you have to trust the other party, that they would not accept a change of the delivery address?

When both parties have the Revocable Delivery transaction, they exchange
signatures for the Commitment Transactions. Bob signs C1a using
KBobF and gives it to Alice, and Alice signs C1b using KAliceF and gives it
to Bob.

Meaning a hacker of Alice would have access to KAliceF, the private key of the funding transaction and KAliceRSMCn.

How would that work with 2 factor?
Do you have to 2 factor sign every msathoshi sent and received?

I see a possible solution by having 2 LN channels:
- channel for micropayments with online singlesig which is as hackable as a normal hot wallet
- channel with 2 factor for higher amounts, where it would be acceptable to manually do the 2 factor signing? What do we gain by multisig ? Wouldn't it suffice to just keep your funding private key offline / on another device? (I still have to think about the RSMC keys, but even  if you want to keep the RSMC keys offline too, that would be also feasible), which would be as (un-) hackable as a traditional cold wallet


Edit: Having access to the RSMC keys in a timely fashion (e.g. 1000 Blocks, or whatever is agreed upon in the channel) is critical if someone would cheat.

[Shawshank]

I still think LN is the best solution out there, but I'm not able to completely follow your train of thought.
For which transaction multisig?

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 26 and 27

If desired, but not necessary, both
parties may update and change PAliceD and PBobD for future Commitment Transactions.

A hacker of Alice could change PAliceD to PHackerD.
Of course he would have access to KHackerD
So having a multisig address (PAliceD + PAliceDOffline) instead of simple PAliceD would not suffice.
Would you have to trust the other party, that they would not accept a change of the delivery address?

Pasting the previous sentence to the one you posted:

For simplicity, these output addresses will remain the same throughout the channel, since its funds are fully controlled by its designated recipient after the Commitment Transaction enters the blockchain. If desired, but not necessary, both parties may update and change P AliceD and P BobD for future Commitment Transactions.

For example, from the point of view of Alice, the destination of the commitment transaction can be whichever she wants, but for that transaction to be valid, it must be properly signed by the two private keys under her control. So, the hacker would still need her two private keys (two-factor authorization) to redirect to a new different Bitcoin address.

Do you have to 2 factor sign every msathoshi sent and received?

The easiest answer is yes. But it could also be possible to be configurable, so that the second factor is only needed for big amounts or for specific periods of time.

I see a possible solution by having 2 LN channels:
- channel for micropayments with online singlesig which is as hackable as a normal hot wallet
- channel with 2 factor for higher amounts, where it would be acceptable to manually do the 2 factor signing? What do we gain by multisig ? Wouldn't it suffice to just keep your funding private key offline / on another device? (I still have to think about the RSMC keys, but even  if you want to keep the RSMC keys offline too, that would be also feasible), which would be as (un-) hackable as a traditional cold wallet

It is one possibility. Channel for micropayments with online singlesig for small amounts and channel with 2 factor for higher amounts.

As you say, another possibility is an offline address with a single private key, for example, in an air-gapped hardware wallet.
Multisignature is practical for two connected devices: for example, a mobile phone and a PC, or having a private key hosted in an exchange.

[freshman777]

To all you fucktards criticising SegWit and LN so why don't you come up and propose alternative solutions to Bitcoins problems? Because it has serious problems on the horizon. Not least because of fucktards like yourselves sitting behind your keyboards moaning.

Wow.. I never thought I 'd say this (don't usually see you in this part of the world-as-we-know-it)... but I agree with MineCache.. {weird feeling}

( Although I choose not to use profanity.. you silly-billys.. )

Solution to Bitcoin's problems: https://www.bitcoin.com/choose-your-wallet/unlimited