So who the hell is still supporting BU?

[Anon TumbleBit]

Anyone knows who is supporting BU? I mean the famous people. I only know bitcoin core devs support SegWit, but most miners don't support SegWit, especially Chinese whales miners, they want to make more money from bitcoin fees.

[1713555963]

1713555963

[1713555963]

1713555963

[1713555963]

1713555963

[1713555963]

1713555963

[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?

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.   

 

Please read up on what segwit is.
Here is a good article
https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is not LN.
It's 2 diffrent things.
LN can work with or without segwit.

[kiklo]

Please read up on what segwit is.
Here is a good article
https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is not LN.
It's 2 diffrent things.
LN can work with or without segwit.

They say that it can work without it, but do you see LN working?
They are full of shit, No segwit and LN will not work the way they need it too.

Miners have blocked segwit (it will never be implemented), so tell core to activate LN unless they are lying.

 

FYI: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network/

However, without segwit or another malleability fix, LN channels have to deal with situations where transactions get mutated ("malleated"), which makes them get stuck at various steps.
Preventing them from getting stuck permanently requires either introducing trust (which we don't want to do) or setting some annoying timeouts that limit the efficiency of channels.

No segwit , No LN the way they have promised it.  

[Lauda]

Anyone knows who is supporting BU?

Nobody in their right mind is what I'd say.

Miners have blocked segwit (it will never be implemented), so tell core to activate LN unless they are lying.

The people working on Bitcoin Core and the people working on different LN implementations are very different. You're delusional.

[kiklo]

Anyone knows who is supporting BU?

Nobody in their right mind is what I'd say.

Miners have blocked segwit (it will never be implemented), so tell core to activate LN unless they are lying.

The people working on Bitcoin Core and the people working on different LN implementations are very different. You're delusional.

You don't even know if you prefer PoS or PoW, you are a confused cat.

Segwit fail, your pathetic attempts at propaganda fail.

At least you are consistent, You Fail all of the Time.  


 

[kiklo]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network/

However, without segwit or another malleability fix, LN channels have to deal with situations where transactions get mutated ("malleated"), which makes them get stuck at various steps.
Preventing them from getting stuck permanently requires either introducing trust (which we don't want to do) or setting some annoying timeouts that limit the efficiency of channels.

So if segwit fails to be activated which it will, and you use LN without segwit , their is a very real Chance your BTC gets Locked forever with no way to retrieve it.
That is funny.  

Now we know why they are not running LN, it loses the BTC and makes it irretrievable.    


 

[Lauda]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network/

However, without segwit or another malleability fix, LN channels have to deal with situations where transactions get mutated ("malleated"), which makes them get stuck at various steps.
Preventing them from getting stuck permanently requires either introducing trust (which we don't want to do) or setting some annoying timeouts that limit the efficiency of channels.

So if segwit fails to be activated which it will, and you use LN without segwit , their is a very real Chance your BTC gets Locked forever with no way to retrieve it.
That is funny.  

Read the important print. It doesn't need Segwit, and any malleability fix will do. I'm not sure what proposals there are for this besides FlexTrans from Zander. However, that one is sub-optimal as it requires a HF and has not been properly tested.

[kiklo]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network/

However, without segwit or another malleability fix, LN channels have to deal with situations where transactions get mutated ("malleated"), which makes them get stuck at various steps.
Preventing them from getting stuck permanently requires either introducing trust (which we don't want to do) or setting some annoying timeouts that limit the efficiency of channels.

So if segwit fails to be activated which it will, and you use LN without segwit , their is a very real Chance your BTC gets Locked forever with no way to retrieve it.
That is funny.  

Read the important print. It doesn't need Segwit, and any malleability fix will do. I'm not sure what proposals there are for this besides FlexTrans from Zander. However, that one is sub-optimal as it requires a HF and has not been properly tested.

You are just a Dummy, there is no malleability fix without segwit!

introducing trust (which we don't want to do)  

 

FYI:
BTC core does not have the balls to hard fork, you yourself have stated how frightening a HF is.
I Personally think you are a bunch of sissies to be so scared of a HF.

[Lauda]

You are just a Dummy, there is no malleability fix without segwit!

Yes there is.. from Tom Zander (Bitcoin Classic). Don't tell me you haven't heard about Bitcoin Classic? I also smell a impending ban due to this excessive trolling.
Here's a good alternative implementation of LN: https://github.com/blockchain/thunder

[kiklo]

You are just a Dummy, there is no malleability fix without segwit!

Yes there is.. from Tom Zander (Bitcoin Classic). Don't tell me you haven't heard about Bitcoin Classic? I also smell a impending ban due to this excessive trolling.

Really when do you think they are going to ban you for trolling for LN & segwit?


 

FYI:
If as a staff member , you can't handle a discussion , maybe if you quit lying, it would be easier on you.  
or
is censorship your only way to win an argument?  

FYI2: As far as the Thunder Network (At least they admit they need segwit.)  
https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/05/16/announcing-the-thunder-network-alpha-release/

Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level.
So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users.
Try this amongst your dev team or amongst your trusted internet friends, but don’t use it for real payments.
Remember: this is alpha testing software.

[kiklo]

As far as Tom Zander (Bitcoin Classic) Transflex project,

A hard fork is required by transflex, I see no reason the miners will agree to it either, if it will allow LN to work.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-transaction-malleability-transflex/

Along with Transflex, the update includes the addition of extra-thin blocks (Xthin blocks).
This feature reportedly solves delays in Bitcoin block propagation.
In essence, a Xthin block decreases the initial size by sending a small fraction of the data inside of it, before rebuilding the block through the node’s own mempool.

The Part in red , seems like the perfect place to form a new attack on BTC.
It seems like there may be potential to actually corrupt the blockchain at that point, but I will leave that up to the hackers.


 

 

[aarturka]

kiklo,

You said yourself that you are some POS shit shill. By doing so you screwed yourself up forever. And just don't waste your time here, trying to malign Bitcoin, you really expect anyone believe such a miserable POSshit shill like you?  

[RealBitcoin]

Segwit does not mess around with either in a dangerous sense which is what you're referring to.

I believe Bitcoin has a fundamental flaw, and that flaw is never addressed, so all these implementations are just a workaround that flaw.

The flaw is that the nodes are not incentivized, and all money goes to a centralized miner cartel.

Now because of this the number of nodes are shrinking, and you need to artificially keep the computational resources low (including blocksize) in order to satisfy current nodes. It's just horrible.

And because the block capacity is small, new users will hardly join bitcoin, and slowly bitcoin will fade away, due to more competitive altcoins.


It's a vicious cycle, just as the saying said: every creation has it's seed of destruction built inside it. Bitcoin's flaw will eventually destroy it.


Now instead of changing the protocol so that a portion of the reward goes to the nodes, we are cornered, and our hands are tied, and watch bitcoin die slowly.

Of course changing the protocol is dangerous, as you said, I am not doubting that. But not changing it will also destroy bitcoin.

So it looks like satoshi was not a genius after all, he was a good inventor, but he missed a fundamental flaw, and that will guarantee bitcoin's destruction eventually

• So instead of giving a % of the block reward to the nodes, we rely on their altruism to keep running expensive servers for free, and give all the money to a centralized mining cartel
• Furthermore we give them transaction fees too? What is the point of TX fees, if the miners already get money from the block reward? I believe TX should be free or very low cost, because the miners are already getting income from the block reward until 2120 or something. And use the ban feature to ban spamming or DDOS nodes.
• Then we need hacks and half baked cakes like Segwit to sort of increase the block capacity, and not disturb nodes so much. Which would not be a problem, if they had an income stream, and not have to pay the server costs from their own pockets

So to wrap it up, Bitcoin is not the NR. 1 currency, it may be here in the future like a ghost haunting us, but the inability to fix the fundamental issue, will guarantee that something better will take it's place eventually.

Maybe BTC will remain as a reserve system for the other cryptocurrencies, that they will peg themselves to via offchains, but it will never go mainsteam, and it will never be the P2P Electronic Cash System that satoshi envisioned.

At best it will be like an electronic Gold. At worst, it will just fade away.

[kiklo]

kiklo,

You said yourself that you are some POS shit shill. By doing so you screwed yourself up forever. And just don't waste your time here, trying to malign Bitcoin, you really expect anyone believe such a miserable POSshit shill like you?  

I believe Proof of Stake will Succeed Proof of Work,
if you are a racist bigot , and that upsets you, well all I can say is Fuck off.   
Cause I don't care what your dumb ass thinks?

Considering my posts are all based on logic and technical info, if you don't like it, there is an ignore button, dummy.

The facts you only have personal attacks against me , show how weak you really are. 

 

FYI:
You want to insult anyone that thinks PoS is a solution.
Idea for an altcoin: 3-way hybrid PoW
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1654457
PM Theymos , I am sure he would love to hear from you. 

[kiklo]

Segwit does not mess around with either in a dangerous sense which is what you're referring to.

I believe Bitcoin has a fundamental flaw, and that flaw is never addressed, so all these implementations are just a workaround that flaw.

The flaw is that the nodes are not incentivized, and all money goes to a centralized miner cartel.

Now because of this the number of nodes are shrinking, and you need to artificially keep the computational resources low (including blocksize) in order to satisfy current nodes. It's just horrible.

And because the block capacity is small, new users will hardly join bitcoin, and slowly bitcoin will fade away, due to more competitive altcoins.

This is a very accurate point, which can be fixed , if personal greed does not prevent it.

If a % of each BTC reward or a % of the BTC transactions were shared with anyone operating a Full Node, that would be incentive enough to keep active full nodes.
Something similar to Dash MasterNode's system would work.

But Core has proven , they are looking out for their personal interests and not the general interests of the BTC community.

 

FYI:
Since Proof of Stake was mention trying to insult me, here is how using Theymos idea of adding proof of stake could help the node problem.
If PoS was added to BTC, any full node could generate a PoS block and Receive the Transaction Fees for including them in the block.
At the current environment , that would be ~$1000 of fees for every block staked.  
Now that is Incentive to run a Full Node!

[youdamushi]

Lucifer and Crawly king of hell lol. Are you sure we would've ended up like ETC/ETH? like everyone could profit 10% on their stashed bitcoins instantly?
I think not. good thing about open source always majority wins but if you put it that way then the majority is the central authority only with the exception that everyone is free and capable to join or become part of the majority.

Yeah but also lose 50% of the value of their coins compared to fiat :/
Anyway it won't happen. just because it would make of BTC nothing but a failed experiment.
That would be the freaking end of the crypto world xD

[RealBitcoin]

This is a very accurate point, which can be fixed , if personal greed does not prevent it.

If a % of each BTC reward or a % of the BTC transactions were shared with anyone operating a Full Node, that would be incentive enough to keep active full nodes.
Something similar to Dash MasterNode's system would work.

But Core has proven , they are looking out for their personal interests and not the general interests of the BTC community.

 

FYI:
Since Proof of Stake was mention trying to insult me, here is how using Theymos idea of adding proof of stake could help the node problem.
If PoS was added to BTC, any full node could generate a PoS block and Receive the Transaction Fees for including them in the block.
At the current environment , that would be ~$1000 of fees for every block staked.  
Now that is Incentive to run a Full Node!

The good thing with decentralized consensus, that we still have, but not for long if this continues, is that we can outvote the miners, if all nodes put their heads together.

Now the challange is that it's hard to introduce change in a decentralized enviroment, and that is the whole point of it, to stop malicious entities from hijacking Bitcoin.

The problem is that this would require BTC to be perfect before launch, so that no additional uppgrades would be needed.

Of course this was the fault of satoshi, of starting a flawed network in 2009, he should have waited some time and find some programmers to think about it.

With 1 more year of engineering and bugfixing, bitcoin could have come out flawless.

But now we have to live with a flawed version of it, that has 16 billion market cap, and it's immutable. How are we going to fix the flaw now?

How are we going to get consensus in a decentralized system, where the point is to not have consensus, to prevent malicious hijacking.

[Lauda]

I believe Bitcoin has a fundamental flaw, and that flaw is never addressed, so all these implementations are just a workaround that flaw.

What you believe has little merit because your knowledge is limited and this isn't based on academic research.

The flaw is that the nodes are not incentivized, and all money goes to a centralized miner cartel.

Please don't push the premined Trash coin (a.k.a. Dash) tech towards Bitcoin.

Now because of this the number of nodes are shrinking, and you need to artificially keep the computational resources low (including blocksize) in order to satisfy current nodes. It's just horrible.

Yes, shrinking hard.

How are we going to get consensus in a decentralized system, where the point is to not have consensus, to prevent malicious hijacking.

See, your understanding of decentralized consensus systems is completely wrong. I don't understand why you are trying to push some 'opinions', 'agendas' or whatever they may be when you don't understand/know the essence. "The point is to not have consensus" is on a new level of absurdity. Bitcoin works right here, right now, because there is consensus. The whole point (in this content) is to have/achieve decentralized consensus which gives it strength.

[Foxpup]

See, your understanding of decentralized consensus systems is completely wrong. I don't understand why you are trying to push some 'opinions', 'agendas' or whatever they may be when you don't understand/know the essence. "The point is to not have consensus" is on a new level of absurdity. Bitcoin works right here, right now, because there is consensus. The whole point (in this content) is to have/achieve decentralized consensus which gives it strength.

BU supporters' understanding of consensus systems in general is completely wrong, not just decentralised ones. I don't know why; it's a simple concept: it means that several independent implementations of a program given the same input data will give the same output, and those that give different results will automatically be known to be wrong. In the specific case of Bitcoin, it means that given multiple conflicting transaction chains, of which only one of them can be valid, all Bitcoin nodes everywhere will always agree on which chain is valid.

BU's so-called "emergent consensus" is not a consensus system of any kind. It explicitly allows nodes to disagree on which of multiple conflicting chains is valid, and it's trivial for malicious miners to force a chain split among disagreeing nodes to allow double-spending. It's not even fair to call this an "attack" since this catastrophic breakdown of consensus is by design. Anyone supporting BU deserves to lose their coins, and I think they're likely to.

[RealBitcoin]

What you believe has little merit because your knowledge is limited and this isn't based on academic research.

It's just intuition for now, we shall see if it becomes reality, in the following years.

Please don't push the premined Trash coin (a.k.a. Dash) tech towards Bitcoin.

Well damn, you can read my mind 

I am not necessarly a Dash fan, but I have seen some positive things there that BTC is lacking.

For now I can't decide which one is better, because BTC has the obvious security advantage. But that might change in the following years, if BTC is unable to evolve.

Segwit or not, there may come a point when an upgrade will be crucial, and if BTC will be unable to evolve, that will be it's certain demise.

Yes, shrinking hard.

We shall see that in 5-10 years. It's a slow process of decay.

Banks used to be decentralized before central banks. But slowly it became this centralized monolithic financial system.

I'm afraid the same fate awaits BTC too.