Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[billyjoeallen]

folks? still that block-discussion going on?

isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.

but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.

so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.

Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then.  You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20. Then the Lightning Network time frame to even be needed or viable gets pushed back possibly indefinitely, and Blockstream gets no new VC money. 

They think this is is a fight for survival for them. They will go down if they lose and we don't yet know if they are willing to take us all down with them by resisting the majority and crashing the market. That's the 65 million dollar question. Will Core remain the reference client and bankrupt their own company or will they hold us all hostage and force us to fight it out with the inevitable market crash that would bring? 

I believe people usually do what's in their own perceived best interest. Core is trying to find out how badly the miners want that 2mb fork.  Is 2MB a request or a demand? They will not honer a request. They will honor a demand if they think it is genuine. The miners may not make one. Core still hopes they can politely refuse the miners without consequence. They may be right, but if they are, Classic nodes will multiply and the market will crash. 

We have recently seen a >$50 rise in price in the middle of a hotly contested election. This is insanity.  The buyers thought that the bigblockers had Core cornered.  They do, but have you ever seen a cornered animal just give up? What would the VC backers of Blockstream think of that? If you think that core cares more about what we think than them, you're dreaming. 

The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.

I'm not entirely clear how LN is propietary in that sense. Is Poon on the Blockstream payroll? How will they make money off it. Sidechains are Blockstream, so maybe there. But LN?

LN will run on centralized servers by Blockstream and maybe others. They will collect transaction fees, some of which will go to the miners when they make on chain settlement trades and some of which they will keep. Liquid (the sidechain) is proprietary and a terrible idea IMHO. If exchanges share liquidity, then they are no longer distributed. A single whale can manipulate the market from one account. Exchanges can operate more easily on fractional reserve, which effectively increases bitcoin supply. 

ECONOMICS:
Money that is too good of a store of value becomes a poorer medium of exchange because people will hoard rather than spend.  OTOH too much spending increases the velocity and effectively increases supply, making a poor store of value.  MV=PQ. There has to be a delicate balance.  Ideally this balance is not achieved by central banker intervention but by allowing currencies to compete. 

[1714239593]

1714239593

[1714239593]

1714239593

[1714239593]

1714239593

[1714239593]

1714239593

[BitUsher]

Core is the status quo and challengers to the status quo have neither met their burden of presentation nor their burden of persuasion in order to successfully change the status quo.  That lack of success does not mean that they will not be successful in the future to make various changes to bitcoin.... If you want to call that democratic, then sure, it could be some form of democracy to attempt to persuade and to present evidence sufficient to persuade a change.. or even to bring computing power or some other leveraged asset (such as public opinion or bitcoin user opinion), and some assets carry more bargaining power than others.  At this point, the most bargaining power seems to be with the miners and the software developers, and there seem to be various factors influencing them.... that causes the directed changes, including seg wit and whatever is going to come thereafter.

No one is required to convince core of anything and can veto any decision they make simply through inaction ... the easiest form of voting = 0 effort. People have to actively go out of their way and choose to use core. It would be trivial for core to create automatic updates with their software or push updates but they refuse to for the expressed reason that they don't want to impose their decisions upon the community... ultimately a user needs to manually upgrading = the vote.

The consensus process within core isn't perfect but generally is a process of meritocracy , consensus , and where the developers attempt to carry out the will of the economic majority and users if their is an overwhelming majority of support for an idea. This is indeed a conservative approach(which is a good thing with this type of open source project) and means that if an idea is contentious it has little hope of being pushed through.

[blunderer]

That's the great thing about soft forks, they can be very contentious™... but rammed through all the same.

If we can't hard fork while a minority disagrees, we will never hard fork again = exactly what they want. Any change desired by the politburo can be soft forked in with enough hacking creativity.

Well, each of us is likely going based on a feeling, and my feeling is that a hard fork is more dangerous than a soft fork, and I don't see any reason to do a hard fork, even based on the information that you just presented involving the potential (maybe even speculative) ability of supposedly "powerful forces" to push potentially unwanted changes via softfork.

-Your crazy experiments are a disgrace to science!
-Those are the very words you used in denouncing me to the faculty, Professor Cconvert2G36... Science! What do you know about science... You with your high-browed put-downs and shriveled mind that refuses to recognize progress...
-What has progress to do with your foolish tamperings with nature?
-Your scheme is too utterly fantastic, Dr. JayJuanGee.

[JayJuanGee]

billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.    

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters.  Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no?  I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now.  So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no?



Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured.   hahahahahhaha

I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually.
I was hoping Todd  would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him,  classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level.

I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view.

ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE

how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you?

time is costly as fuck.

Most of the time, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I think that you bring a lot to the table, even if I may not agree.

However, in this line of discussion, you seem to have gone nearly completely bonkers, and for what reason I don't know.  It is like you seem obsessed with your ideas, and really they seem to be out there in their speculation and exaggerations that are frequently reading way too much into a variety of factors, including some of the evidence that you are presenting to support your conclusions.

For argument sake, let's say that currently transaction fees are somewhat open, discretionary and they can be free, at times, or range between $0 and $.25, depending on the service or how much the sender wants to include.

But probably the average reasonable fee for larger transactions (excluding micro-transactions for the moment for the sake of argument) is around $.08 per transaction.

a 100x increase would put the average at $8 per transaction, and that is quite outrageous, but really, I believe that you are speculating way too much.  We got a long way to know for sure until we can figure out how much the transaction fees are going to be under a variety of scenarios, and if there is going to be some variation for size of the transaction... sending $10 value versus sending $1million... or a variety of other amounts.

[BitUsher]

I'm not entirely clear how LN is propietary in that sense. Is Poon on the Blockstream payroll? How will they make money off it. Sidechains are Blockstream, so maybe there. But LN?

Poon and Thaddeus Dryja who invented Lightning network and doing most of the work on it have nothing to do with Blockstream and aren't payed by them. LN is on a sidechain right now - elements alpha... but only for testing and it isn't going to be an exclusive blockstream product or a side chains product. sidechains are also open source... you can setup a sidechains server without blockstreams permission and test the LN right now- also open source.

LN will run on centralized servers by Blockstream and maybe others. They will collect transaction fees, some of which will go to the miners when they make on chain settlement trades and some of which they will keep.  

Well this is a lie, and not only goes against what Blockstream has indicated in their plans but is provably untrue right now. Anyone can run LN and a sidechain server right now ... there is no cost, and no permission needed.

[JayJuanGee]

Core is the status quo and challengers to the status quo have neither met their burden of presentation nor their burden of persuasion in order to successfully change the status quo.  That lack of success does not mean that they will not be successful in the future to make various changes to bitcoin.... If you want to call that democratic, then sure, it could be some form of democracy to attempt to persuade and to present evidence sufficient to persuade a change.. or even to bring computing power or some other leveraged asset (such as public opinion or bitcoin user opinion), and some assets carry more bargaining power than others.  At this point, the most bargaining power seems to be with the miners and the software developers, and there seem to be various factors influencing them.... that causes the directed changes, including seg wit and whatever is going to come thereafter.

No one is required to convince core of anything and can veto any decision they make simply through inaction ... the easiest form of voting = 0 effort. People have to actively go out of their way and choose to use core. It would be trivial for core to create automatic updates with their software or push updates but they refuse to for the expressed reason that they don't want to impose their decisions upon the community... ultimately a user needs to manually upgrading = the vote.

The consensus process within core isn't perfect but generally is a process of meritocracy , consensus , and where the developers attempt to carry out the will of the economic majority and users if their is an overwhelming majority of support for an idea. This is indeed a conservative approach(which is a good thing with this type of open source project) and means that if an idea is contentious it has little hope of being pushed through.

I think that more or less we are saying the same thing, even though you may have said it more eloquently than me.     

[adamstgBit]

billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.    

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters.  Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no?  I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now.  So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no?



Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured.   hahahahahhaha

I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually.
I was hoping Todd  would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him,  classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level.

I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view.

ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE

how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you?

time is costly as fuck.

Most of the time, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I think that you bring a lot to the table, even if I may not agree.

However, in this line of discussion, you seem to have gone nearly completely bonkers, and for what reason I don't know.  It is like you seem obsessed with your ideas, and really they seem to be out there in their speculation and exaggerations that are frequently reading way too much into a variety of factors, including some of the evidence that you are presenting to support your conclusions.

For argument sake, let's say that currently transaction fees are somewhat open, discretionary and they can be free, at times, or range between $0 and $.25, depending on the service or how much the sender wants to include.

But probably the average reasonable fee for larger transactions (excluding micro-transactions for the moment for the sake of argument) is around $.08 per transaction.

a 100x increase would put the average at $8 per transaction, and that is quite outrageous, but really, I believe that you are speculating way too much.  We got a long way to know for sure until we can figure out how much the transaction fees are going to be under a variety of scenarios, and if there is going to be some variation for size of the transaction... sending $10 value versus sending $1million... or a variety of other amounts.

you misunderstand

LN will be free ( or nearly free )

i'm saying there's a huge hidden cost to using LN, that cost is the time you'll  need to get your head around the current state of your payment channel...


0.08$ fee or 30mins of thinking


ya ~100X more expensive...

[Cconvert2G36]

It is surprisingly small ... He elaborates the number of lines of changes in the original XT proposal exceed Segwit changes .
This is a fair comparison because most of the XT supporters are now classic supporters insinuating that Segwit is a massive change when they were will to accept (in some regards- loc) a larger change before.

he says that its safer to do segwit then change the MAXBLOCKSIZE define

trud manure, every word, trud manure

In many ways(not all) segwit is indeed safer than simply increasing maxBlockSize. It doesn't involve a contentious hardfork(99% of people support segwit in itself ) , it allows for signature pruning which reduces costs on the network = safer , Fixes most Malleability issues= safer, creates a Linear scaling of sighash operations = safer, allows for safer deployment of softforks in future, Reduces UTXO growth , ect....

This is the changeset for SegWit:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7404

I seriously encourage anyone to have a little browse after being told this is the safer, simpler option.

A form of segwit could/would have tangible benefits, but it's being sold in an underhanded way. As a carrot when the network needs more capacity... and in current form, is designed in a way that applies economic favoritism at the protocol level with fee discounts.

If a small increase of maxblocksize was implemented first as a HF, or if they were hardforked together, nearly all of my concerns would be assuaged. I would still argue against favoritism in the fee economics... but I would instantly become much more agreeable generally. As long as a HF is slated way off into 2017... if at all (Gregory's current roadmap), I will remain distrustful of Core's leadership and their conflicted interest in forcing the settlement layer architecture.

If things have changed and a hard date for a hard fork is promised in 2016... our disagreement is much closer to resolution.

[JayJuanGee]

That's the great thing about soft forks, they can be very contentious™... but rammed through all the same.

If we can't hard fork while a minority disagrees, we will never hard fork again = exactly what they want. Any change desired by the politburo can be soft forked in with enough hacking creativity.

Well, each of us is likely going based on a feeling, and my feeling is that a hard fork is more dangerous than a soft fork, and I don't see any reason to do a hard fork, even based on the information that you just presented involving the potential (maybe even speculative) ability of supposedly "powerful forces" to push potentially unwanted changes via softfork.

-Your crazy experiments are a disgrace to science!
-Those are the very words you used in denouncing me to the faculty, Professor Cconvert2G36... Science! What do you know about science... You with your high-browed put-downs and shriveled mind that refuses to recognize progress...
-What has progress to do with your foolish tamperings with nature?
-Your scheme is too utterly fantastic, Dr. JayJuanGee.

Blunderer:  You are really talking non-sense in this above post, but I will accept your arguable nonsense as if it were some recognition for potential artful expression, even though it borders on an attempt to distract readers of this thread from our topic which in this particular post initially was meant to be (to the best of my knowledge) the practical application of bitcoin hard/softfork in the real world speculation.. blah blah blah.   

[blunderer]

...
ECONOMICS:
Money that is too good of a store of value becomes a poorer medium of exchange because people will hoard rather than spend.  OTOH too much spending increases the velocity and effectively increases supply, making a poor store of value.  MV=PQ. There has to be a delicate balance.  Ideally this balance is not achieved by central banker intervention but by allowing currencies to compete.  

Nonsense! The balance must be cranked all the way to "store of value" and what's more, algorithmically predetermined and inflexible, unwinding like a dunb clockwork forever and ever, blind & indifferent to economic changes.

@JayJuanGee: *nonsense. oneword.

[BitUsher]

you misunderstand

LN will be free ( or nearly free )

i'm saying there's a huge hidden cost to using LN, that cost is the time you'll  need to get your head around the current state of your payment channel...


0.08$ fee or 30mins of thinking


ya ~100X more expensive...

Inside secret-
Here is how a LN payment will be made by a LN enabled wallet according to the devs I have spoken too (brace yourself for the complexity of the user experience)

1) scan qr code, enter in onename id , or select user from address book
2) type in amount of payment in btc or fiat (possibly skipped if QR code enters in amt for client)
3) Select priority level
4) enter in password or pin
5) Click send

and here is another way they plan in the future:

1) tap cell phone against product and nfc picks up payment amount
2) client clicks yes on phone with optional pin

[JayJuanGee]

billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.    

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters.  Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no?  I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now.  So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no?



Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured.   hahahahahhaha

I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually.
I was hoping Todd  would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him,  classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level.

I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view.

ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE

how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you?

time is costly as fuck.

Most of the time, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I think that you bring a lot to the table, even if I may not agree.

However, in this line of discussion, you seem to have gone nearly completely bonkers, and for what reason I don't know.  It is like you seem obsessed with your ideas, and really they seem to be out there in their speculation and exaggerations that are frequently reading way too much into a variety of factors, including some of the evidence that you are presenting to support your conclusions.

For argument sake, let's say that currently transaction fees are somewhat open, discretionary and they can be free, at times, or range between $0 and $.25, depending on the service or how much the sender wants to include.

But probably the average reasonable fee for larger transactions (excluding micro-transactions for the moment for the sake of argument) is around $.08 per transaction.

a 100x increase would put the average at $8 per transaction, and that is quite outrageous, but really, I believe that you are speculating way too much.  We got a long way to know for sure until we can figure out how much the transaction fees are going to be under a variety of scenarios, and if there is going to be some variation for size of the transaction... sending $10 value versus sending $1million... or a variety of other amounts.

you misunderstand

LN will be free ( or nearly free )

i'm saying there's a huge hidden cost to using LN, that cost is the time you'll  need to get your head around the current state of your payment channel...


0.08$ fee or 30mins of thinking


ya ~100X more expensive...

hahahahahaha...

That's some pretty creative cost calculations and levity added to the equation...   In any event, LN is quite a ways into the future anyhow.  Just think about all the time each of us wastes in these various forums...  (almost 65 days of my life for me, at the moment as i type).   


And, I wonder if I should back off my earlier tentative assessment that you may have transitioned into:


A LITTLE BONKERS.


 

[BitUsher]

I would still argue against favoritism in the fee economics..

The reason this was done is 2 fold.. incentivize adoption to segwit and more importantly Reduce UTXO growth.

I will remain distrustful of Core's leadership and their conflicted interest in forcing the settlement layer architecture.

How will bitcoin scale to the mainstream if it didn't act as a settlement layer for the main chain? It certainly cant get far by continually increasing the block side.

[adamstgBit]

billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.    

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters.  Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no?  I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now.  So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no?



Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured.   hahahahahhaha

I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually.
I was hoping Todd  would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him,  classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level.

I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view.

ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE

how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you?

time is costly as fuck.

Most of the time, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I think that you bring a lot to the table, even if I may not agree.

However, in this line of discussion, you seem to have gone nearly completely bonkers, and for what reason I don't know.  It is like you seem obsessed with your ideas, and really they seem to be out there in their speculation and exaggerations that are frequently reading way too much into a variety of factors, including some of the evidence that you are presenting to support your conclusions.

For argument sake, let's say that currently transaction fees are somewhat open, discretionary and they can be free, at times, or range between $0 and $.25, depending on the service or how much the sender wants to include.

But probably the average reasonable fee for larger transactions (excluding micro-transactions for the moment for the sake of argument) is around $.08 per transaction.

a 100x increase would put the average at $8 per transaction, and that is quite outrageous, but really, I believe that you are speculating way too much.  We got a long way to know for sure until we can figure out how much the transaction fees are going to be under a variety of scenarios, and if there is going to be some variation for size of the transaction... sending $10 value versus sending $1million... or a variety of other amounts.

you misunderstand

LN will be free ( or nearly free )

i'm saying there's a huge hidden cost to using LN, that cost is the time you'll  need to get your head around the current state of your payment channel...


0.08$ fee or 30mins of thinking


ya ~100X more expensive...

hahahahahaha...

That's some pretty creative cost calculations and levity added to the equation...   In any event, LN is quite a ways into the future anyhow.  Just think about all the time each of us wastes in these various forums...  (almost 65 days of my life for me, at the moment as i type).   


And, I wonder if I should back off my earlier tentative assessment that you may have transitioned into:


A LITTLE BONKERS.


 

i'm nearly at 1 year. can you blame me for going bonkers?

[bargainbin]

...

A LITTLE BONKERS.


 

Just picture gentlemen: An army of wolf men. Fearless! Raging! Every man a snarling animal! My serum will make it possible to unloose millions of such animal men. Men who are governed by one collective thought: the animal lust to kill, without regard to personal safety.
Such an army will be invincible, gentlemen!

[billyjoeallen]

Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:

It's better than nothing. It seems like a poor design idea to make such a complicated alteration of the protocol, but it aids scaling. Seems riskier than changing a 1 to a 2, but if it works on TestNet, I'll play along.  I do not oppose SegWit and welcome it, despite it being a very poor substitute for bigger blocks. 

If there is a rough consensus attack ongoing, it means the bad guys wants us to squabble over how to scale so much that we don't scale.  They will support one side only until it looks like it's going to win and then support the other side. Even if there is not a rough consensus PsyOp, the effect is the same if we can't compromise.

I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution.  I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

[JayJuanGee]

you misunderstand

LN will be free ( or nearly free )

i'm saying there's a huge hidden cost to using LN, that cost is the time you'll  need to get your head around the current state of your payment channel...


0.08$ fee or 30mins of thinking


ya ~100X more expensive...

hahahahahaha...

That's some pretty creative cost calculations and levity added to the equation...   In any event, LN is quite a ways into the future anyhow.  Just think about all the time each of us wastes in these various forums...  (almost 65 days of my life for me, at the moment as i type).  


And, I wonder if I should back off my earlier tentative assessment that you may have transitioned into:


A LITTLE BONKERS.


 

i'm nearly at 1 year. can you blame me for going bonkers?

Probably sometimes we all need to take a bit of a break from our addictive lil friend....    

[JayJuanGee]

Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:

It's better than nothing. It seems like a poor design idea to make such a complicated alteration of the protocol, but it aids scaling. Seems riskier than changing a 1 to a 2, but if it works on TestNet, I'll play along.  I do not oppose SegWit and welcome it, despite it being a very poor substitute for bigger blocks. 

If there is a rough consensus attack ongoing, it means the bad guys wants us to squabble over how to scale so much that we don't scale.  They will support one side only until it looks like it's going to win and then support the other side. Even if there is not a rough consensus PsyOp, the effect is the same if we can't compromise.

I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution.  I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

Roughly, at the moment, I think that you are at the bargaining stage.   

[BitUsher]

I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution.  I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

This is fine and reasonable and I don't want you to lose money ... I'll stop arguing , go and help segwit get tested more, and look forward to April release. Good night Bitcointalk.

[mymenace]

Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:

It's better than nothing. It seems like a poor design idea to make such a complicated alteration of the protocol, but it aids scaling. Seems riskier than changing a 1 to a 2, but if it works on TestNet, I'll play along.  I do not oppose SegWit and welcome it, despite it being a very poor substitute for bigger blocks. 

If there is a rough consensus attack ongoing, it means the bad guys wants us to squabble over how to scale so much that we don't scale.  They will support one side only until it looks like it's going to win and then support the other side. Even if there is not a rough consensus PsyOp, the effect is the same if we can't compromise.

I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution.  I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.

Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.

Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.

Just Merkle Tree it