So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[kiklo]

I'm tired of these Unlimited trolls, I've little doubt that they are paid for their bs, that they post everyday around the clock. They don't have any occupation and just trolls at Ver's behest

@Viscount
(Once you lose an argument, you sees Trolls everywhere like CB & Lauda.)  
(It is a side effect of the segwit & LN cult programming they put you thru.)



 

[1714762762]

1714762762

[1714762762]

1714762762

[1714762762]

1714762762

[1714762762]

1714762762

[1714762762]

1714762762

[kiklo]

@Lauda

Question for you ,
How long does your opinion normally last, (I mean did someone pay you or  Were you brainwashed or did you get a concussion?)
1 minute you are supporting PoS over PoW and next Bam , you are a lover of LN & segwit (the ugly banker twins of the crypto world.)

I'm glad it at least a Proof of Stake coin think most of these little alts should start going that route.

I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.

 

FYI:
There is help for you , if they brainwashed you.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult7.htm

Deprogramming is the more drastic of the two approaches because it usually involves an initial kidnapping to get the cult member away from the cult. For this reason, deprogramming is a very expensive service. It can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. After the forced removal, deprogramming mostly involves hours and hours of intense "debriefing," during which a team of deprogrammers hold the cult member against his will and use ethical psychological techniques to try to counter the unethical psychological techniques used by the cult. The goal is to get the cult member to think for himself and re-evaluate his situation.

 

[franky1]

a few posts by franky (most have been debunked long ago)

lauda you have debunked nothing.
others have debunked nothing.

your only rebuttle is "he is wrong <insert insult> wave victim card"

segwit solves nothing because spammers and scammers will still use native keys so the 'problems' of quadratic spam, low tx count and malleability will continue.

you cannot denie that!

call me any insult you like to show your loyalty and defend blockstream.. but concentrate on bitcoin. you have to accept that segwit does not fix the problem.


your over use of umbrella terms and not understanding the context of the subcategories shows you still need to learn.
for months i have not said you should shut up. instead i have said you should learn something. its called constructive criticism.

learn consensus
part of that involves learning that soft and hard are umbrella terms and there are subcategories below BOTH

learn 'orphans' - part of that involves learning that orphan is an umbrella term.
a parent does not need to be killed off for a child to be an orphan. and there are many types of orphans.

i have even helped you direct your education in a direction that doesnt involve you 'spending years learning how to code c++' (your mindset last year). so you have no excuses to not learn basic concepts. because you can still learn alot about bitcoin without needing to learn how to code


i know you have not read lines of code. but it may be worth you atleast not having cabin fever of only listening to one narrative from the group you have pigeon holed yourself in. be open minded, think outside the box and wear the critical thinking cap. not the blockstream defense helmet.

separate yourself mentally from blockstream. and think about BITCOIN.

you will get further along in life if you realise bitcoin should not be reliant on your gods adam back, sipa and gmaxwell.

bitcoin is not about being controlled by a few guys. so stop defending the guys. otherwise when they leave you are going to be heart broken.
devote your attention and mindset to bitcoin. not blockstream employees who can come and go.


lastly logical and smart people are critical minded. not utopian dream salesmen. so when you see a dev sweep something under the carpet or try to sell you the empty benefits instead of addressing the problem. think critically about it. dont be fooled that they are a good person because of their sales pitch.

life lesson: dont be sold by a sales pitch or glossy image. read the small print and terms/conditions.

[jbreher]

The quadratic hashing issue is a non-problem.

Any miner that creates a block that takes inordinate time to validate will find himself bankrupted by other miners who continue hashing on the same parent to find a peer solved block. Such a peer solved block will validate well before the aberrant block, leading to the aberrant block being orphaned. 'Problem' solved. With the incentives as they exist today. Unchanged.

I love the semantic hair split between "issue" and "problem" that you start off with.  Great spin.  Very Comical Ali of you.

Spin? WTF? No spin here.

I could have used the word 'aspect' instead of 'issue'. Or 'attribute'. Or some other. Wouldn't have made much difference.

But how can you predict exact future scenarios like that?  Are you psychic?  Do you have visions or hear angels?

It is not a 'prediction', it is pointing out an essential element of the incentives already baked in to Bitcoin. I know you know that Bitcoin only works _at_all_ because the incentives are such that 'doing the right thing' is profitable. Right? Well, this is just one more instance of doing the right thing being profitable.

I'll admit that I don't know if any significant miners currently implement this policy. Then again, aberrant blocks -- in the sense that they take a huge time to validate -- are rare. Indeed, I am aware of only one ever being created. But if such blocks ever became A Thing, rational miners will implement the mode I describe above. Because orphaning such aberrant blocks by others guarantees increased profitability.

Sure, we might choke down several aberrant blocks in the meantime. But that won't bring the network down. It merely forestalls block completion time in the same manner that a variance outlier does. We've choked down at least one of these blocks before -- indeed one crafted intentionally to max out validation time -- to no ill effect.

The rest of us simply don't know the specifics about the situation (which seems to be both empirical and theoretical!) you are describing.

Don't blame me for your being unable to game out this perfectly rational scenario. It is the only such scenario that makes sense in the case of such aberrant blocks.

Doesn't the percent of total mining power the putative attack block creator determine the likelihood of his attack fork will be reclaimed by the defending chain?

Of course. A 51% attacker always gets to define the chain. What's your point?

Doesn't variance also play a non-computable role in determining whether the attack block-based or defending chain-based side will win?

Of course. These things are all probabilistic. But the incentives are aligned to render this (::ahem::!) attribute a non-problem.

If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?   

Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

[jbreher]

The quadratic hashing issue is a non-problem. Any miner that creates a block that takes inordinate time to validate will find himself bankrupted by other miners who continue hashing on the same parent to find a peer solved block. Such a peer solved block will validate well before the aberrant block, leading to the aberrant block being orphaned. 'Problem' solved. With the incentives as they exist today. Unchanged.

Nonsense. I'm not going to hope for some optimal-case scenarios with open attack vectors out there.

So in the case that multiple solution blocks to a block round are present, which one will be built atop? The valid block that validates promptly, the valid block that takes an inordinate amount of time to validate, or the invalid block that will never validate because it is counterfeit?

[LLec]

I have seen this BU being spewed on the forum lately in full force but can not find out what it is.
BitcoinCore devs or something else. At first I thought it was something like Butterfly labs but then thought that didn't make much sense with all the talk concerning what they do will effect the ETF to come in March.
I actually did a search typing in BU in the search field here but my efforts were for nothing but miner threads.

Ah ok Bitcoin unlimited.

I saw it on a torrent site and just saw the size of it and decided not to touch it.
Was just a clone of bitcoin core.

[BillyBobZorton]

I'm tired of these Unlimited trolls, I've little doubt that they are paid for their bs, that they post everyday around the clock. They don't have any occupation and just trolls at Ver's behest

Bitcoin unlimited has been disproved as a non viable solution by anyone with respectable technological backgrounds in the field, yet these guys insist in making the blocksize flexible being a good idea. They will never learn.

[Peter R]

I have seen this BU being spewed on the forum lately in full force but can not find out what it is.

You can read what we're doing with Bitcoin Unlimited here:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/what-were-doing-with-bitcoin-unlimited-simply-6f71072f9b94

[coins101]

I have seen this BU being spewed on the forum lately in full force but can not find out what it is.
BitcoinCore devs or something else. At first I thought it was something like Butterfly labs but then thought that didn't make much sense with all the talk concerning what they do will effect the ETF to come in March.
I actually did a search typing in BU in the search field here but my efforts were for nothing but miner threads.

Ah ok Bitcoin unlimited.

I saw it on a torrent site and just saw the size of it and decided not to touch it.
Was just a clone of bitcoin core.

Calling it a clone might be a tad contentious.

Just sayin.

[iCEBREAKER]

The quadratic hashing issue is a non-problem.

Any miner that creates a block that takes inordinate time to validate will find himself bankrupted by other miners who continue hashing on the same parent to find a peer solved block. Such a peer solved block will validate well before the aberrant block, leading to the aberrant block being orphaned. 'Problem' solved. With the incentives as they exist today. Unchanged.

I love the semantic hair split between "issue" and "problem" that you start off with.  Great spin.  Very Comical Ali of you.

Spin? WTF? No spin here.

I could have used the word 'aspect' instead of 'issue'. Or 'attribute'. Or some other. Wouldn't have made much difference.

But how can you predict exact future scenarios like that?  Are you psychic?  Do you have visions or hear angels?

It is not a 'prediction', it is pointing out an essential element of the incentives already baked in to Bitcoin. I know you know that Bitcoin only works _at_all_ because the incentives are such that 'doing the right thing' is profitable. Right? Well, this is just one more instance of doing the right thing being profitable.

I'll admit that I don't know if any significant miners currently implement this policy. Then again, aberrant blocks -- in the sense that they take a huge time to validate -- are rare. Indeed, I am aware of only one ever being created. But if such blocks ever became A Thing, rational miners will implement the mode I describe above. Because orphaning such aberrant blocks by others guarantees increased profitability.

Sure, we might choke down several aberrant blocks in the meantime. But that won't bring the network down. It merely forestalls block completion time in the same manner that a variance outlier does. We've choked down at least one of these blocks before -- indeed one crafted intentionally to max out validation time -- to no ill effect.

The rest of us simply don't know the specifics about the situation (which seems to be both empirical and theoretical!) you are describing.

Don't blame me for your being unable to game out this perfectly rational scenario. It is the only such scenario that makes sense in the case of such aberrant blocks.

Doesn't the percent of total mining power the putative attack block creator determine the likelihood of his attack fork will be reclaimed by the defending chain?

Of course. A 51% attacker always gets to define the chain. What's your point?

Doesn't variance also play a non-computable role in determining whether the attack block-based or defending chain-based side will win?

Of course. These things are all probabilistic. But the incentives are aligned to render this (::ahem::!) attribute a non-problem.

If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?  

Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

Yes, I understand what makes Bitcoin work is its (magnificent, sublime) alignment of incentives.

No, you can't simply assert ("waaaah, it's not a prediction") you have concrete knowledge of future events, because another way to describe your "perfectly rational scenario" is "anointed vision."

Quadratic sigop validation is an ISSUE.  You may try to furiously backpedal and retroactively substitute in less self-incriminating terms like "aspect" or "attribute" but the damage is done.  Everything you pile on top of your inadvertent admission are excuses at best and lies at worst.

Your problem is that you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it, yet feel perfectly comfortable telling those of us who are you know more about the situation.  That some nice Entitlement Syndrome you got there, Mr. Comical Ali.

GTFO and come back when you are less ignorant of the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects.

Here, I'll even spoon feed you like a baby so you can't whine about how mean I'm being.  

“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous. You can watch my presentation at DevCore last November for the details, but basically Satoshi didn’t think hard enough about how transactions are signed, and as a result it is possible to create very large transactions that are very expensive to validate. This commit cleans up some of that “technical debt,” implementing a new ValidationCostTracker that keeps track of how much work is done to validate transactions and then uses it along with a new limit (MAX_BLOCK_SIGHASH) to make sure nobody can create a very expensive-to-validate block to try to gum up the network.

Do not relay or mine excessive sighash transactions

This is a belt-and-suspenders fix to make sure CreateNewBlock() or external mining software can never produce a block that violates the MAX_BLOCK_SIGHASH rule.

It does this by rejecting transactions that do too much signature hashing -- they are not added to the memory pool, and so will not be considered for inclusion in new blocks.

 gavinandresen committed on Feb 2, 2016

See?  We don't need to ask Gavin anything.  He's already rubbished your entire position.  You'd be aware of that if you read more and played Nostradamus less.

[Gimpeline]

_______________________________________________
Miners will loose profit..

Miners will lose profit from ONCHAIN transactions fees, due to LN taking the majority of transactions OFFCHAIN.

Are you blind or just stupid, where you can't understand that.

LN will Steal Transactions fees from the Miners.

or are you another Dufus , that thinks Offchain is more trustworthy than ONCHAIN.


 

Bullshit. Itsw segwit we are talking about not LN. How is Segwit stealing from miners?

[jbreher]

another way to describe your "perfectly rational scenario" is "anointed vision."

Nonsense. I am pointing out that incentives are already aligned to make this a non-problem.

Your problem is that you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

Your problem seems to be an inability to reason from first principles.

You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it,

I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.

GTFO and come back when you are less ignorant of the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects.

Go fuck yourself. I'm not going anywhere.

And I am perfectly conversant with "the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects." At least, you have provided nothing that rebuts my observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem.

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?

“Accurate sigop/sighash accounting and limits” is important, because without it, increasing the block size limit might be dangerous. You can watch my presentation at DevCore last November for the details, but basically Satoshi didn’t think hard enough about how transactions are signed, and as a result it is possible to create very large transactions that are very expensive to validate. This commit cleans up some of that “technical debt,” implementing a new ValidationCostTracker that keeps track of how much work is done to validate transactions and then uses it along with a new limit (MAX_BLOCK_SIGHASH) to make sure nobody can create a very expensive-to-validate block to try to gum up the network.

Nothing in that invalidates my claim that mining incentives are aligned to render this a non-problem. Sure, somebody "can create a very expensive-to-validate block to try to gum up the network." But they can expect to find their solved block orphaned by another, quicker-to-validate solved block that extends the chain while laggards are still wasting time spinning cycles on trying to validate the aberrant block.

Do not relay or mine excessive sighash transactions

This is a belt-and-suspenders fix to make sure CreateNewBlock() or external mining software can never produce a block that violates the MAX_BLOCK_SIGHASH rule.

It does this by rejecting transactions that do too much signature hashing -- they are not added to the memory pool, and so will not be considered for inclusion in new blocks.

 gavinandresen committed on Feb 2, 2016

Umm, are you not a native english speaker? Do you not know what a 'belt and suspenders' fix is?

See?  We don't need to ask Gavin anything.  He's already rubbished your entire position.  

Well, no. Your Gavin quote does not even address my assertion. But nice try, junior.

You'd be aware of that if you read more and played Nostradamus less.

Agan - it is not prediction, it is reasoning.

[Lauda]

1 minute you are supporting PoS over PoW and next Bam , you are a lover of LN & segwit (the ugly banker twins of the crypto world.)

I'm glad it at least a Proof of Stake coin think most of these little alts should start going that route.

I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.

Yes, 1 minute has passed since 2013. This just confirms that you're a useless troll and that you should be banned.

lauda you have debunked nothing.
others have debunked nothing.

Everything was debunked. You're wasting your time and ours.

segwit solves nothing because spammers and scammers will still use native keys so the 'problems' of quadratic spam, low tx count and malleability will continue.

you cannot denie that!

Looks like someone still doesn't fully understand how Segwit works. It most certainly solves that aspect for relevant TXs.

You can read what we're doing with Bitcoin Unlimited here:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/what-were-doing-with-bitcoin-unlimited-simply-6f71072f9b94

Where are all the fancy gifs full of pseudo-science?  I'm disappointed and can't the old nickname that someone gave you in this context anymore (IIRC 'Peter R. Charlatan').

[iCEBREAKER]

Before getting BTFO:

If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?  

Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

After getting BTFO:

You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it,

I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.

So which is it?  Is your final answer "not aware" or "certainly aware?"  

You admit having no clue about the details (instantly characterized as "irrelevant" despite you not being previously aware of them) yet continue to assert the validity of your anointed vision despite lacking the background required for such a churlish degree of certainty.

I always reason from first principles, which is precisely why I don't omit inconvenient facts and messy empirical data, such as the quadratic hashing problem, when forming opinions and conclusions.  Take your fact-free crystal ball and shove it deep up your worthless Gypsy fortune teller ass, OK?

BTW, Gavin (not me) defined quadratic sigop validation time as a "problem."

So you need to convince Gavin (not me) that your But Muh Incentives And Logical Inturrpolayshun Thought Experimunt analysis are correct, and he needn't worry about the O(n^2) attack, because you've got it all figured out.

[franky1]

Everything was debunked. You're wasting your time and ours.

segwit solves nothing because spammers and scammers will still use native keys so the 'problems' of quadratic spam, low tx count and malleability will continue.

you cannot denie that!

Looks like someone still doesn't fully understand how Segwit works. It most certainly solves that aspect for relevant TXs.

lol i made something bold. which is where you are word twisting to make it sound like it solves the problem for bitcoin but it only prevents users who use these "relevant " (segwit) tx's from doing the things that cause a problem.

but you are not realising that people wont use those "relevant" (segwit) tx's.. meaning.. in the real world.. outside of your utopia.. the problem for bitcoin is not solved.

scammers and spammers will continue to use native keys to make native tx's, even after segwit would activate.
accept the reality! segwit does not solve the problem

you have no clue, you are just a bad salesman that has only had 1 hour training on the product your trying to sell..
you have failed to sweep the real problem under the carpet. and instead done the most obvious and crappy attempt to sweep the problem under the carpet.

atleast learn something and stop just being told crap scripts to read and repeat.


right now im still laughing that people think segwit solves the problem for the whole of bitcoin. when all it does is stop the few people who voluntarily choose to move their funds over to segwit keys from performing the problems, yet doesnt stop the malicious users who will just continue using native keys.

its such a laugh at how empty segwits promises are becoming even the fee discount only moves prices down to a level of a few weeks ago. which later is not a noticeable discount due to the average tx fee price rise over time


edit

absurdly large paragraphs.

your inability to read a few paragraphs is probably the most revealing thing about you


segwit is an empty gesture. end of

[Lauda]

lol i made something bold. which is where you are word twisting to make it sound like it solves the problem for bitcoin but it only prevents users who use these "relevant " (segwit) tx's from doing the things that cause a problem.

Nobody is twisting anything, otherwise I wouldn't have formulated it so clearly. If anyone is twisting things, then it is probably you with absurdly large paragraphs.

but you are not realising that people wont use those segwit tx's so the problem for bitcoin are not solved.

You do realize that those people can't create bigger blocks if they don't use Segwit TXs? Therefore, problem that could occur at 2 MB gets solved.

you have no clue, you are just a bad salesman that has only had 1 hour training on the product your trying to sell..

I'm neither a salesman nor is there such a thing as me trying to sell some product.

[jbreher]

If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?

Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

After:

You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it,

I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.

So which is it?  Is your final answer "not aware" or "certainly aware?"

Your initial tirade was insufficiently specific to know which specific pull req that you referred to as 'unbelievably klugy'. After you actually bothered to identify that to which you were referring, it was evident I was already aware of it. Said identification, of course, being exactly why I pointed out that the thing of which I was unaware was what thing you had not at that point identified. Accordingly, until you identified it, I was not aware of what specific thing you were referring to. This is absolutely elementary. English much?

So you need to convince Gavin ...

I don't need to convince Gavin of doodly-squat. He's an uninvolved third party in this discussion. So far, this discussion is you and me, and you have not as of yet bothered to identify any shortcoming to my  observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem. After three rounds, I am about to conclude you are unable to.

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?.

[iCEBREAKER]

If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?

Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

After:

You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it,

I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.

So which is it?  Is your final answer "not aware" or "certainly aware?"

Your initial tirade was insufficiently specific to know which specific pull req that you referred to as 'unbelievably klugy'. After you actually bothered to identify that to which you were referring, it was evident I was already aware of it. Said identification, of course, being exactly why I pointed out that the thing of which I was unaware was what thing you had not at that point identified. Accordingly, until you identified it, I was not aware of what specific thing you were referring to. This is absolutely elementary. English much?

So you need to convince Gavin ...

I don't need to convince Gavin of doodly-squat. He's an uninvolved third party in this discussion. So far, this discussion is you and me, and you have not as of yet bothered to identify any shortcoming to my  observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem. After three rounds, I am about to conclude you are unable to.

It's not like Gavin has written dozens of patches to fix workaround what you are now conceding is an "issue."

My initial tirade could only refer to a single, specific patch because Gavin only wrote one patch to fix work around the quadratic hashing issue.

There ARE NO OTHER tx_size limiting patches for you to have been confused by, you quivering deflecting hand-waving piece of shit.

I'll change my mind about the O(n^2) attack being a "problem" when Gavin does, since he was the one who identified it as such.

What happened to your overwhelming conviction that the quadratic sigop scaling problem isn't really an issue, merely an 'aspect' or 'attribute'?

Oh that's right, I showed you where Gavin used the word "problem" to describe the potential attack vector, and you were thus BTFO.

I'm not surprised you'd rather drop that point and pretend like it never happened, and glad you've decided to live in consensus reality, where an O(n^2) attack is considered by sane, informed people to be a PROBLEM.

Pro tip: when you make a shitty unsupportable argument like "this O(n^2) issue isn't a problem or an issue, oops I called it an issue, I take that back, I mean to say 'aspect' or 'attribute'" and then drop it when BTFO, it reflects poorly on the rest of your credibility.

If you didn't lack the necessary background required to form intelligent opinions on the subject matter, you'd be aware of GMAX and others' negative responses to Gavin's 100k tx size limit fix workaround.

Those critical responses gave Gavin's quick and dirty proposal NACKs because it is unforgivably kludgy and the opposite of future-proof (requiring another hard fork if it needed to be changed).

mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem

Objection.  Calls for speculation.

Assumes facts not in evidence.  Your anointed vision, epistemological closure, and metaphysical certainty don't count as evidence.  But good luck deducing from first principles empirical matters of fact!  

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?.

I'll do that right after you familiarize yourself with the essential aspects of the topic and stop glossing over vital bits simply because you were not aware of them (or not aware of their significance).  

The devil is in the detail.  The details you casually and instantly dismiss as "irrelevant" are anything but.  Get a clue or STFU.

Asking you to know WTF you are talking about before promoting your worthless Bitcoin Horoscope opinion as incontrovertible fact is not asking too much; it's a reasonable request.

Wait, isn't "mining incentives" the same hand waving BS that BU claims will magically allow the network to handle unlimited block sizes?

I'm sure that's just a coincidence....


/REKT

[kiklo]

_______________________________________________
Miners will loose profit..

Miners will lose profit from ONCHAIN transactions fees, due to LN taking the majority of transactions OFFCHAIN.

Are you blind or just stupid, where you can't understand that.

LN will Steal Transactions fees from the Miners.

or are you another Dufus , that thinks Offchain is more trustworthy than ONCHAIN.


 

Bullshit. Itsw segwit we are talking about not LN. How is Segwit stealing from miners?

Geez,
feels like I am teaching kindergarden.

LN is waiting on segwit, no segwit and odds are LN will not work as promised.

IF LN is working an unlimited number of transaction fees will then be processed offline.
BTC onchain miners will not receive fees for the BTC that LN has locked in place.
(LN secret goal is to LOCK all BTC in place and only have Offchain Transactions).
Once they have starved the onchain miners of enough revenue, they go bankrupt, LN operations will start a small asics farm to process their transactions.
Since LN makes all of their money offchain with no competition, they can run some asics to keep the ONCHAIN running at a deficient, therefore making them the only one that can afford to be BTC miners. 

In simple terms for you.
LN makes Money OFFCHAIN, cause BTC miners to Lose Money, LN completely takes over BTC by making ONCHAIN mining unprofitable for everyone. 

Now go play with your crayons.   

 

[kiklo]

See?  We don't need to ask Gavin anything.  He's already rubbished your entire position.  You'd be aware of that if you read more and played Nostradamus less.

Galvin also said:
https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

Blocksize Increase: ‘Nothing Bad Will Happen’
The comments were made in response to concerns about an increase to 2MB by longstanding r/btc subreddit user u/Pool30.
“I believe the network will eventually have so many problems, that an increase in blocksize will happen. But 2MB is not enough, lets push for 8MB or 20MB instead,” u/Pool30 wrote.

Andresen replied:

        Yes, let’s eliminate the limit.

        Nothing bad will happen if we do.