So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[Lauda]

Several suggestions have included removing the entire transaction data from a block and only keep it's hash.

And then store the TX data on some other blockchain or servers.

This idea gets thrown around every now and then, that you can see one idea on reddit today:
https://twitter.com/SDLerner/status/830911111209824256
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5tphbt/sergio_demian_lerner_thinking_lumino_as_a_bitcoin/

By several you mean one? This has no relevance to my post, and you're just trying to fruitlessly defend your losing argument. An on-chain soft fork != 2nd layer solution.

So all this cunning plotting and scheming that goes behind the backdoors is what worries me. The block is not a lab rat to try out all sorts of crazy ideas on. If we want a stable system with pre defined constants (21 m coin limit, SHA256 based mining algo, etc), then we also need to agree on one thing.

Bullshit. Nobody has to create anything, especially not publicly.

Which is that the transaction code should not be stripped away.

You do realize that by putting the blockchain data on a 2nd layer, you are essentially creating a centralized database.

Why are you talking about a random proposal that just appeared recently, when I was not even defending/arguing said proposal? You're becoming a bigger waste of time than franky. It is clearly obvious that these kinds of discussions are way above your knowledge and current comprehension.

So why are you still here trolling? Leave Bitcoin, as per your threat, or stop being a vacuous drama queen (yet more justification not to take your words seriously)

Exactly, either users need to admit when wrong (I've done it often, no big deal) or they need to go away,

[1714638776]

1714638776

[1714638776]

1714638776

[kiklo]

Segwit is DEAD!

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                        24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3%
8 MB Blocks                   7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

8 MB Blocks                   7.5% =>   100%- 7.5% =  92.5%   SEGWIT FAIL
or
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3% =>   100%-18.3% =  81.7%   SEGWIT FAIL

Combined                    25.8%  =>   100%-25.8% = 74.2%   SEGWIT FAIL


Segwit has failed, Game Over it will never reach 95%.

 

[Carlton Banks]

Which is that the transaction code should not be stripped away.

You do realize that by putting the blockchain data on a 2nd layer, you are essentially creating a centralized database.

Why are you talking about a random proposal that just appeared recently, when I was not even defending/arguing said proposal? You're becoming a bigger waste of time than franky. It is clearly obvious that these kinds of discussions are way above your knowledge and current comprehension.

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.

[hv_]

Which is that the transaction code should not be stripped away.

You do realize that by putting the blockchain data on a 2nd layer, you are essentially creating a centralized database.

Why are you talking about a random proposal that just appeared recently, when I was not even defending/arguing said proposal? You're becoming a bigger waste of time than franky. It is clearly obvious that these kinds of discussions are way above your knowledge and current comprehension.

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.

So you say in the end it's only matter of price for what 'side' you might post.

May I ask you what BS did pay you ?

Just to find out what Ver needs to bring up...

 

[RealBitcoin]

Which is that the transaction code should not be stripped away.

You do realize that by putting the blockchain data on a 2nd layer, you are essentially creating a centralized database.

Why are you talking about a random proposal that just appeared recently, when I was not even defending/arguing said proposal? You're becoming a bigger waste of time than franky. It is clearly obvious that these kinds of discussions are way above your knowledge and current comprehension.

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.

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.

[RealBitcoin]

Exactly, either users need to admit when wrong (I've done it often, no big deal) or they need to go away,

I admit that I have no extensive technical knowledge on the subject.

But that doesn't mean that I cant ask questions or cant criticize things when I see a logical or methodical flaw in it.

My point was to defend against centralization, which is the core philosophy of bitcoin. If we abandon that, then the entire experiment is meaningless.

Stripping away core features, and introducing radical change, I believe is not in the best interest of the network, regardless of what the technical implementations are. What can I say, I am a conservative. I never see "change" as a good thing.

If the roadmap stinks, then no "hacking" or patching the code will make that OK.

If the roadmap tends toward centralization, then I simply cannot support it. Thats approach to Bitcoin.

[hv_]

Which is that the transaction code should not be stripped away.

You do realize that by putting the blockchain data on a 2nd layer, you are essentially creating a centralized database.

Why are you talking about a random proposal that just appeared recently, when I was not even defending/arguing said proposal? You're becoming a bigger waste of time than franky. It is clearly obvious that these kinds of discussions are way above your knowledge and current comprehension.

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.

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.

Thx - and this kind of critical thinking is absolutely needed in bitcoin and gladly (still?) possible here in bitcointalk - look at reddit/bitcoin where you can joke only in a closed environement - how boring!

[RealBitcoin]

Thx - and this kind of critical thinking is absolutely needed in bitcoin and gladly (still?) possible here in bitcointalk - look at reddit/bitcoin where you can joke only in a closed environement - how boring!

Thanks.

Also for the record, I don't support Bitcoin Unlimited. I find it an equally centralized project.

It is just so funny, but also sad, that everyone is trying to grab power. As soon as you leave a power vacuum, every fucker is just trying to grab as much power as they can.

This is the sad part of humanity.

Thankfully we still have a transparent node voting system, but it's only a question of time until it will be subverted, because one way or the other, bitcoin will become centralized, if the attitude of people doesn't change.

[Carlton Banks]

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.

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

And that's sssssso credible, after you and a fellow troll just tried to bury my post with.... a bunch of unsubstantiated propaganda

[RealBitcoin]

And that's sssssso credible, after you and a fellow troll just tried to bury my post with.... a bunch of unsubstantiated propaganda

You are delusional. I am not in team with franky, in fact I used to criticize him a few month back. But nice try.

[Carlton Banks]

And that's sssssso credible, after you and a fellow troll just tried to bury my post with.... a bunch of unsubstantiated propaganda

You are delusional. I am not in team with franky, in fact I used to criticize him a few month back. But nice try.

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



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

[hv_]

And that's sssssso credible, after you and a fellow troll just tried to bury my post with.... a bunch of unsubstantiated propaganda

You are delusional. I am not in team with franky, in fact I used to criticize him a few month back. But nice try.

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



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

Thanks to Troll CB I m able now to define exactly what SPAM is: Find out about users and their posts how often they used the word 'troll' or 'trolling' despite using the 'Report to moderator' feature.

I bet CB is top of this list. And yes - I used it today most frequent compared to all my posts...

[Lauda]

Thanks to Troll CB I m able now to define exactly what SPAM is: Find out about users and their posts how often they used the word 'troll' or 'trolling' despite using the 'Report to moderator' feature.

I bet CB is top of this list. And yes - I used it today most frequent compared to all my posts...

Disagreed. Whilst I most certainly not agree with all of their methods or approaches, the user is neither a troll nor is he trolling. It's unfortunate that this turned into a 'dispute', but it seems to be inevitable.
Read back on my statement:

Exactly, either users need to admit when wrong (I've done it often, no big deal) or they need to go away,

Refusing to do so usually makes you look like a troll or an idiot. Choose the one you like more.

[kiklo]

And that's sssssso credible, after you and a fellow troll just tried to bury my post with.... a bunch of unsubstantiated propaganda

You are delusional. I am not in team with franky, in fact I used to criticize him a few month back. But nice try.

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



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

Thanks to Troll CB I m able now to define exactly what SPAM is: Find out about users and their posts how often they used the word 'troll' or 'trolling' despite using the 'Report to moderator' feature.

I bet CB is top of this list. And yes - I used it today most frequent compared to all my posts...

LOL,
If CB has not called you a troll, then he was not talking to you.      

 

FYI:
Full Disclaimer, he has called me a Troll on Multiple Posts.  
(Once he can't win an argument, he sees Trolls everwhere.)

[franky1]

since last year lauda and CB have been backing each other up. while turning a discussion about code and technicals into a victim card where they try to play the victim of (their last years special word ad-hom)

they both lack any ability to read technical details and prefer to poke the bear with personal attacks and then play a victim card when personal attacks get hit back at them.
at most they just display images handpicked to present as their 'promotional material' and repeat scripts everyone has heard 100 times before by other blockstream interns

its the same boring script they try every time.

i have personally given them many oppertunities to learn about bitcoin and learn the community HATE blockstream..
CB and lauda are not defending bitcoin they are defending blockstream. but try to make out anyone hating blockstream as people attacking bitcoin.
which is another failure of understanding by them

they really need to stop protecting the corporate centralists and actually learn about bitcoin.
yes i already know they are desperate unpaid interns trying desperately hard to be centralist loyalists hoping to grab a few pennies of the corporate $90m investment.

but they need to wake up and care more about bitcoin and less about their own greedy needs that involve selling their morals.

its time they stop waving the victim card each day and start learning bitcoin.

bitcoin needs to be rid of blockstream and start thinking of diverse teams on an equal playing field of no control where only the NODES form the consensus followed by the pools forming consensus once they see nodes have consensus.

no dev-kings.. no need to be loyal to any dev, no need to get on your knees to devs.

nodes=managers
devs=employee's

not the other way round

[HostFat]

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

[kiklo]

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

Especially liked the following comments.  

The other theoretical solution is the lightening network to carry out the off chain transactions
Two years ago it was an idea and by the looks of it, it still is (despite recent alpha announcements).
The proposal is to have transactions in off chain transactions that will somehow be trusted.
Again we go back to off chains being just like the old banking infrastructure today.
These off chain payment channels still rely on broadcasting back to the Blockchain.
If we already have congested blocks then how is Lightening even going to work?
The transaction fees and intermittent nature will still be present as these channels will only scale so far and we would still need to figure out how to scale on chain.
Lightening just seems like a complex theoretical model when in fact off chain should be simple.
If we go back to my Coinbase example it can just be on a central database.
Various payment providers keep track of their own ledgers, in fact this is what banks do today the technology is already there.
Users could choose to have a Bitcoin account with say a mainstream bank like Barclays.
Most of their transactions occur off chain on ledgers just like today.
Then the user may demand once their balance reaches a certain point to automatically post a set amount to a private bitcoin address they own.
They may choose just to use a bank to handle their bitcoin.

So not only is all the above both in my opinion unnecessary and complex but how the heck am I going to explain Bitcoin to others?
It was hard enough when there was just the Blockchain with terms such as distributed consensus and miners and digital wallets (and I had to pray they didn’t ask what wallets were and if there were coins).
Now I’ve got to explain these exotic off chain solutions on top of all that.
To me its almost like people are working on ways to make Bitcoin more complicated and in the long run make it more unpopular.

 

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoins stagnation
https://medium.com/@p.g.tomlinson/bitcoins-stagnation-2098753b2e17#.6ou04fus8

Great article

Especially liked the following comments.  

The other theoretical solution is the lightening network to carry out the off chain transactions
Two years ago it was an idea and by the looks of it, it still is (despite recent alpha announcements).
The proposal is to have transactions in off chain transactions that will somehow be trusted.
Again we go back to off chains being just like the old banking infrastructure today.
These off chain payment channels still rely on broadcasting back to the Blockchain.
If we already have congested blocks then how is Lightening even going to work?
The transaction fees and intermittent nature will still be present as these channels will only scale so far and we would still need to figure out how to scale on chain.
Lightening just seems like a complex theoretical model when in fact off chain should be simple.
If we go back to my Coinbase example it can just be on a central database.
Various payment providers keep track of their own ledgers, in fact this is what banks do today the technology is already there.
Users could choose to have a Bitcoin account with say a mainstream bank like Barclays.
Most of their transactions occur off chain on ledgers just like today.
Then the user may demand once their balance reaches a certain point to automatically post a set amount to a private bitcoin address they own.
They may choose just to use a bank to handle their bitcoin.

So not only is all the above both in my opinion unnecessary and complex but how the heck am I going to explain Bitcoin to others?
It was hard enough when there was just the Blockchain with terms such as distributed consensus and miners and digital wallets (and I had to pray they didn’t ask what wallets were and if there were coins).
Now I’ve got to explain these exotic off chain solutions on top of all that.
To me its almost like people are working on ways to make Bitcoin more complicated and in the long run make it more unpopular.

 

Honey Badger really doesn't give a shit if some moon kidz want to characterize his activities as "stagnation."  Who made you his life coach?

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

"As a key feature of the Lightning Network, Poon and Dryja proposed  trustless  bidirectional payment channels."

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

A Lightning type payment channel is simply a write cache for the blockchain.

Do you know how much the write cache improves a hard drive's performance?  Try turning yours off and find out.

Why don't you moan about the presence of write caches on hard drives, and spew FUD about how output operations to the write cache aren't real "on disk" transactions!   

[kiklo]

Honey Badger really doesn't give a shit if some moon kidz want to characterize his activities as "stagnation."  Who made you his life coach?

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

"As a key feature of the Lightning Network, Poon and Dryja proposed  trustless  bidirectional payment channels."

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

A Lightning type payment channel is simply a write cache for the blockchain.

Do you know how much the write cache improves a hard drive's performance?  Try turning yours off and find out.

Why don't you moan about the presence of write caches on hard drives, and spew FUD about how output operations to the write cache aren't real "on disk" transactions!  

You're a foul mouth little Asshat ,

LN is Offchain Transactions , a Service that will Directly compete with the Miners for transaction fees.

LN will allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.
A write cache would not allow counterfeiting & banking style fraction reserves in to BTC.

Also a Write Cache would actually speed up ONCHAIN TRANSACTIONS,
IN NO WAY POSSIBLE DOES LN SPEED UP ONCHAIN TRANSACTIONS!
Due to LN locking requirements it would actually SLOW DOWN ONCHAIN transactions by locking them.  

That would require a blocksize increase or a faster blockspeed.

So your write cache analogy is bullshit.  

 

FYI:
You seem to not understand the following ,

These off chain payment channels still rely on broadcasting back to the Blockchain.
If we already have congested blocks then how is Lightening even going to work?
The transaction fees and intermittent nature will still be present as these channels will only scale so far and we would still need to figure out how to scale on chain.

[hv_]

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

Lol

If you really believe this than every other alt is trustless in nearly same manner.

-> Go and use them.

Think:

1. How much energy goes into making bitcoin that trustless it is?

2. How much do you need for LN ?

3. How much risk is introduced by any interface (complexity layer) like a pegging?


Pls go and read physics or Shannon about entropy and order -> security.


On-chain scaling is the most secure thing one could do (here you have the biggest hardware + energy investors = miners behind) and we need this first or at least parallel to all the other triggy (less trustless! - blockstream cash cows) scalings on top.