Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream)

[franky1]

If we're just going to throw big blocks at the blockchain, we don't solve the problem long term (do the maths to see how big blocks would need to be to compete with Visa) and open ourselves up to attacks on the network (which Johnny describes in the video). Scaling via Segwit will gives us far better long term benefits as well as much better long term scaling solutions which allow us to think in a exponentially in terms of the number of transactions processed vs in a linear manner.

1. stop using the failed doomsday of VISA by midnight.. we are not going to reach 1billion users by midnight. so stop thinking bitcoin need to suddenly turn into visa overnight.(instead think natural long term growth)

2. compared to 2009-2012 bitcoin has already made many efficiency efforts so if bitcoin could run fine on a raspberry Pi in say 2012.. guess what. it can run MORE THAN FINE now.

3. infact technology has moved on since 2012 and raspberry Pi3 is available. for instance if libsecp256k1 made efficiency saving of 5x.. and a raspberry Pi3 is 4x(single thread) - 10x(four thread) more efficient compared to the original Pi. that makes raspberry3 in 2017, 20-50x efficiency gain compared to code of bitcoin/tech of Pi of say 2012

4. here is the important part. putting a halt on any natural onchain growth using speculation of 30 years and turning it into a fear of tomorrow. is foolish.

5.how about people take their head off the pillow and allow REAL natural onchain growth(not fake gestures of pretend growth segwit cant honour). and have side services for the offchain stuff.. and over the years as bitcoin and computer tech evolve they naturally ofset each other where over time people need to use LN less and less because the blockchain grows NATURALLY over years.

6. again for emphasis stop using the failed doomsday of visa by midnight. and think rationally about real natural growth. halting natural growth with fears that it cant grow is not solving the problem. its just creating your self fulfilling prophecy by not allowing it to grow

7. segwit is broke. opens more attack vectors and only disarms innocent people who use segwit keys but doesnt disarm the network/block. people using native nodes/keys still can do things onchain. meaning segwit doesnt fix anything

[1713511775]

1713511775

[1713511775]

1713511775

[pereira4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY&feature=youtu.be&t=300

That was it. If anyone is supporting Bu/anti-segwit agenda, I don't know what to tell you.

It was clear how Roger Ver is simply not able to form coherent arguments, he is too emotional. Johnny was articulate, calm and collected.

And Johnny isn't even one of main coders. I would like to see Gmaxwell debating on those streams, see if they can keep up to the debate outside of computer screen trolling.

I didn't watch it.  I wasn't under the impression that Roger is a technical guy.

I trust the expertise of people like Gavin and Peter Rizun who are advocating
for BU and also because it makes sense to me and is extremely simple.

I actually came up with the same idea on my own before BU existed that
"we should let the miners decide" and that the blocksize  shouldn't
be part of the consensus rules.  If you search the forum you might
find that thread.
 
I trust blockstream about as far as I can throw them.
 

Gavin, the aspiring-to-be benevolent dictator of bitcoin along with Mike Hernia:


http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/

Gavin, the idiot that got fooled by Craig "please I want to be satoshi pay attention to me" Wright.

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-regrets-role-satoshi-nakamoto-saga/

And Gavin, the guy that wanted to centralize the network with his ridiculous huge blocksize increases, comparing blocksizes to webpage sizes:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/636569665284775937

I could go on. But sorry, Gavin hasn't done anything remarkable in years, literally nothing worth talking about other than shitposting on reddit and tweeting trash.

Meanwhile Core devs have been working hard to keep making the software better, more robust, and innovating it.

BUllshit Team isn't able to keep up with Core's updates:



And Roger Ver... what can we say about this guy at this point? Just an idiot that won the bitcoin lottery by being at the right moment holding the right asset. Bought a lambo and goes around giving lectures and thinks he knows shit about bitcoin, pathetic. He's a child arguing with people that are playing on another level. He not only can't code anything, but he doesn't understand game theory. He doesn't see beyond "fast transactions, cheap fees = we get rich now!!!".

Nick Szabo, Andreas and everyone:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/
http://bitcoinist.com/hashcash-antonopoulos-segwit-best/

Anyone supporting BU or being against segwit in 2017 is a disgrace for bitcoin.

But of course, franky1 the resident shitposter knows better, segwit is broken, BU is a way better idea, lets go BU so we can all get rich from people buying starbucks with onchain bitcoin transactions, yellow lamborghini incoming, thanks BU devs now we all can be Roger Ver.

[franky1]

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

lol typical script reciter
all you need is a post with the words 'conservative' and 'ad-hom' and ull have the blockstream triple golden ticket

you do know that andreas was talking about segwit before it was even in a form ready for bitcoin..
MAY 2016 (not october 2016.)

segwit doesnt disarm the network from sigop quadratics (just disarms the USERS that would move funds to segwit keys)
segwit doesnt disarm the network from tx malleation (just disarms the USERS that would move funds to segwit keys)
segwit doesnt give a true doubling of tx count

segwit only disarms people who use segwit keys. allowing spammers to continue spamming and also opens a new attack vector via 'anyonecanspnd'

gmaxwell, sipa and matt corallo tried to hide the attack vector by centralising segwit nodes as upstream filters to automate not allowing native nodes from getting segwit unconfirmed transactions. but.. manually copy&pasting is a short microsecond task meaning the new attack vector is not even 'fixed' either.

the end result is this
1. blocks will still contain mealleated tx's
2. blocks will still contain sigop quatratic bloated tx's
3. blocks that have messed with segwit tx's via 'anyonecanspend'
4. not everyone will move funds over to segwit keys and so dont expect anywhere near 2x.. expect atbest 1.3x

[jonald_fyookball]

...stuff

Do I disagree with Mike Hearn's authoritarian rhetroic?  Absolutely.

That's why it was so sad and shocking to see he was making more
sense than Greg Maxwell and his merry band of stonewalling core devs.

Let me seriously ask you a few questions:

Do you understand that blockstream/core wants to force essentially everyone off the main
chain?

Do you understand this would turn Bitcoin into a settlement network instead of the digital cash
system it is today?

Do you understand this represents a centralization threat that is arguably more dangerous
than it being costly to run a full node?

[udevNull]

The whole issue at all. If in a year or two we get bigger blocks AND segwit, how will we look back on this history?

We do not need bigger blocks, we need segwit/LN.

But it looks like we will have BTC forked into two blockchains.

Anyway, I'm optimist, I hope "large-block" chain will die after LN adoption.

We do not need segwit what we need is bigger blocks. Segwit will not be adopted and will never reach the 95% of consensus from the overall population of miners. We need to increase the blocksize to maintain the status of bitcoin as decentralized. If we adopt segwit and they will move for Lightning Network to make a move in bitcoin decentralization will die.

SegWit offers a far better scaling solution in the long term. Aside from an immediate bump to ~1.7/2MB block size increase. After that comes lightening network, schnorr signatures, mimble wimble and tumble bit which each add their own increase in capacity. Just increasing the block size without Seg Wit is pointless and a waste of money. Bitcoin Unlimited, for instance, even has the abilty to just kill Bitcoin by being in a constant flux and disagreement over what is the main chain and what is a valid and invalid block. It becomes chaos because you just never know if something that got confirmed will stay confirmed, which breaks Bitcoin.

[udevNull]

If we're just going to throw big blocks at the blockchain, we don't solve the problem long term (do the maths to see how big blocks would need to be to compete with Visa) and open ourselves up to attacks on the network (which Johnny describes in the video). Scaling via Segwit will gives us far better long term benefits as well as much better long term scaling solutions which allow us to think in a exponentially in terms of the number of transactions processed vs in a linear manner.

1. stop using the failed doomsday of VISA by midnight.. we are not going to reach 1billion users by midnight. so stop thinking bitcoin need to suddenly turn into visa overnight.(instead think natural long term growth)

2. compared to 2009-2012 bitcoin has already made many efficiency efforts so if bitcoin could run fine on a raspberry Pi in say 2012.. guess what. it can run MORE THAN FINE now.

3. infact technology has moved on since 2012 and raspberry Pi3 is available. for instance if libsecp256k1 made efficiency saving of 5x.. and a raspberry Pi3 is 4x(single thread) - 10x(four thread) more efficient compared to the original Pi. that makes raspberry3 in 2017, 20-50x efficiency gain compared to code of bitcoin/tech of Pi of say 2012

4. here is the important part. putting a halt on any natural onchain growth using speculation of 30 years and turning it into a fear of tomorrow. is foolish.

5.how about people take their head off the pillow and allow REAL natural onchain growth(not fake gestures of pretend growth segwit cant honour). and have side services for the offchain stuff.. and over the years as bitcoin and computer tech evolve they naturally ofset each other where over time people need to use LN less and less because the blockchain grows NATURALLY over years.

6. again for emphasis stop using the failed doomsday of visa by midnight. and think rationally about real natural growth. halting natural growth with fears that it cant grow is not solving the problem. its just creating your self fulfilling prophecy by not allowing it to grow

7. segwit is broke. opens more attack vectors and only disarms innocent people who use segwit keys but doesnt disarm the network/block. people using native nodes/keys still can do things onchain. meaning segwit doesnt fix anything

1. I'm using it to illustrate a point. I could've used any service for that. If you're missing the point, I suggest you re-read the sentence or ask me if you didn't understand.

2. See point 1.

3. I don't understand how this relates. Please elaborate.

4. Nobody is putting a halt on on chain growth. We're just suggesting a better solution.

5. I think you misunderstand how SegWit and how efficient scaling works. At least that is apparent from this sentence.

6. Real natural growth is complex and is not solved by short sighted knee jerk reactions to a scenario.

7. Please provide sources on those attack vectors and how it "disarms innocent people". This kind of FUD is really dangerous. I think you need a refresher on how SegWit works.

[jonald_fyookball]

 Just increasing the block size without Seg Wit is pointless and a waste of money.

How is it a waste of money?

Bitcoin Unlimited, for instance, even has the abilty to just kill Bitcoin by being in a constant flux and disagreement over what is the main chain and what is a valid and invalid block.
It becomes chaos because you just never know if something that got confirmed will stay confirmed, which breaks Bitcoin.

The only way that could happen is for the network to have a nearly exact 50/50 split of mining power supporting two distinct blocksizes, and for this exact split to sustain itself
over a period of a time, which is virtually impossible.

In any other situation, the longest chain with the most work done will continue to be accepted, with occasional orphaning and reorgs, as it has always done.

[franky1]

unbiased clarity

SegWit offers ...an immediate bump to ~1.7/2MB block size increase.

NO IT DOES NOT
when segwit 'activates' NOTHING scalable changes..
WEEKS after activation a new release is made public that includes segwit key wallets.
scaling then ONLY OCCURS IF people move funds to segwit keys and then move funds between segwit keys.

meaning if 1% of users use segwit keys expect only a maximum "BUMP" of 1.01mb
meaning if 100% of users use segwit keys expect only a maximum "BUMP" of ~2.1mb

do not expect 100% segwit key utility. and dont expect it to happen instantly at activation

a far better scaling solution in the long term lightening network, schnorr signatures,

lightning network can aggregate transactions and help. but again there are users that dont need, want and wont use LN. so dont expect LN or schnorr to be the cure.

also dont confuse lightning with segwit. they are 2 different things. lightning does NOT need segwit.

mimble wimble and tumble bit which each add their own increase in capacity.

mimblewimble as a sidechain via LN service great. but not as a bitcoin mainnet onchain feature where it has control of EVERYONES privky to move their TX and mix the funds together onchain.. think long and hard about that risk of a mimble manager just grabbing your unspent to mix without your consent!!!
mimble should be offchain to be used by those that volunteer to hand their funds across to a mimble manager.

Just increasing the block size without Seg Wit is pointless and a waste of money.

segwit doesnt disarm the network. it just disarms users who voluntarily choose to use segwit keys
meaning malicious people will continue using native keys and still sigop quadratic spamming and bloat spamming and malleating tx's
segwit does not fix the things it promises. its not needed and was 'oversold' 'over promised' and under delivers

[pereira4]

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

lol typical script reciter
all you need is a post with the words 'conservative' and 'ad-hom' and ull have the blockstream triple golden ticket

you do know that andreas was talking about segwit before it was even in a form ready for bitcoin..
MAY 2016 (not october 2016.)

Wrong, here is Andreas talking about the benefits of segwit in a very recent article:

https://medium.com/@aantonop/i-think-you-have-captured-an-important-point-f263828a0af#.tptfrx1fg

here is a recent tweet:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/821016551075639297

In any case, Andreas is irrelevant compared to Nick Szabo, and in any case, they are both for segwit. Sorry, your shitposting is ineffective.

Do you understand this represents a centralization threat that is arguably more dangerous
than it being costly to run a full node?

Do you understand that in order for onchain transactions to scale anywhere notable for a global currency, the blocksize would be so huge that it would be a centralized mess of a network run by specialized "node runners" running the nodes instead of decentralized actors, thus rendering bitcoin an useless token for hipsters?

[sidhujag]

Afaik segit is prereq to mallaeability issue thus LN and schnorr sigs and thus is needed for future scaling of btc

[franky1]

Afaik segit is prereq to mallaeability issue thus LN and schnorr sigs and thus is needed for future scaling of btc

LN is just a 2-in 2out tx
segwit isnt needed because malleability can be sorted simply by 'bob' not signing if 'alice' malleated. and alice wont sign if bob malleated

and they then wont sign the same tx again unmalleated where funds end up elsewhere.
in short malleation is removed simply by needing a second pair of eyes looking at a tx before signing.. which is a fundemental feature of LN. thus malleation is solved just by being done through a multisig

[jonald_fyookball]

Do you understand that in order for onchain transactions to scale anywhere notable for a global currency, the blocksize would be so huge that it would be a centralized mess of a network run by specialized "node runners" running the nodes instead of decentralized actors, thus rendering bitcoin an useless token for hipsters?

Im not against some layered solutions in addition to main chain scaling as long as its not rammed down our throats like core is doing.  Let miners, users, and the free market decide.  When network propagation issues becomes a real concern, they will simultaneously become a competitive hinderance.

[franky1]

Do you understand that in order for onchain transactions to scale anywhere notable for a global currency, the blocksize would be so huge that it would be a centralized mess of a network run by specialized "node runners" running the nodes instead of decentralized actors, thus rendering bitcoin an useless token for hipsters?

typical "gigabyts by midnight" scare story..

be rational
NATURAL GROWTH OVER YEARS/DECADES where nodes announce what they are capable of and pools only make blocks to what nodes can cope with. other wise nodes simply orphan the block thats too excessive...
over time nodes will cope with more because technology moves forward. growing naturally without the stupid "servers by midnight" fake doomsdays

we are not in the days of computers having a 4gb max hard drive (1990's) or internet being 56k... things have moved on.
and will move on.

by the time we get to "visa populous" (by the way we wont get visa populous by midnight, it takes time for user adoption) tech will grow.

EG
rasperry Pi3 and current bitcoin efficiency gains allow a raspberry pi3 to handle 20-50x more bitcoin capability than older stats of older tch worries in 2012.

inshort even CORE.. yes your kings know that bitcoin is 8mb safe. but are happy with 4mb bloat.
the issue is core dont want to expand the REAL native block of 1mb NOT because it then risks data loss,  network issues.. but risks the desire of using a LN hub for blockstream to get some cash back in from fee's to repay their VC's.

PS LN has a niche, for certain user types, and should exist as a VOLUNTARY side service for those niches. but should not be seen as the sole solution to scaling. because LN has limitations and issues which not everyone will need to use LN for.

[sidhujag]

Afaik segit is prereq to mallaeability issue thus LN and schnorr sigs and thus is needed for future scaling of btc

LN is just a 2-in 2out tx
segwit isnt needed because malleability can be sorted simply by 'bob' not signing if 'alice' malleated. and alice wont sign if bob malleated

and they then wont sign the same tx again unmalleated where funds end up elsewhere.
in short malleation is removed simply by needing a second pair of eyes looking at a tx before signing.. which is a fundemental feature of LN. thus malleation is solved just by being done through a multisig

"Segwit prevents third-party and scriptSig malleability by allowing Bitcoin users to move the malleable parts of the transaction into the transaction witness, and segregating that witness so that changes to the witness does not affect calculation of the txid."

So this is bs? LN whitepaper says itself that it cannot be implemented without bip62 or something  like segwit to solve the issue

[Carlton Banks]

Im not against some layered solutions in addition to main chain scaling as long as its not rammed down our throats like core is doing.  Let miners, users, and the free market decide.  When network propagation issues becomes a real concern, they will simultaneously become a competitive hinderance.

Yeah, because a bunch of lying Bitcoin trolls just keep turning up to all the Bitcoin Unlimited forums, trying to force their system onto the BU system, which was working fine withou.... oh no, hang on, BU based forums are dead, no-one from Bitcoin itself actually cares, and Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't exist until it forks.

[franky1]

"Segwit prevents third-party and scriptSig malleability by allowing Bitcoin users to move the malleable parts of the transaction into the transaction witness, and segregating that witness so that changes to the witness does not affect calculation of the txid."

So this is bs? LN whitepaper says itself that it cannot be implemented without bip62 or something  like segwit to solve the issue

imagine this

alice makes a tx.. and malleates it..
bob looks at alices signature and see's something doesnt look right compared to what bob is signing. .. bob doesnt sign
thus transaction cant be added to a block and alice cant do anything.
LN works without segwit, due to mutually assured destruction. funds cannot move unless both agree not to cause issues. if one causes issues it destroys their own effort because the other side recognises the attack.


yes segwit is another way and solves things in a different way. but its just not needed. people can make safe LN contracts right now
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that are not needed.
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that do not fix the network and only disarm those that use segwit keys (not those using native keys). meaning the problems inside the network/blocks will still occur because malicious people will just use native keys and continue doing their malicious stuff

all segwit will permanently cause is that segwit nodes being UPSTREAM filter nodes, selectively filtering down what it desires to non blockstream nodes. in essence centralised gatekeepers of the network.
(hint: FIBRE)

[sidhujag]

"Segwit prevents third-party and scriptSig malleability by allowing Bitcoin users to move the malleable parts of the transaction into the transaction witness, and segregating that witness so that changes to the witness does not affect calculation of the txid."

So this is bs? LN whitepaper says itself that it cannot be implemented without bip62 or something  like segwit to solve the issue

imagine this

alice makes a tx.. and malleates it..
bob looks at alices signature and see's something doesnt look right compared to what bob is signing. .. bob doesnt sign
thus transaction cant be added to a block and alice cant do anything.

yes segwit is another way. but its just not needed.
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that are not needed.
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that do not fix the network and only disarm those that use segwit keys (not those using native keys). meaning the problems inside the network/blocks will still occur because malicious people will just use native keys and continue doing their malicious stuff

all segwit will permanently cause is that segwit nodes being UPSTREAM filter nodes, selectively filtering down what it desires to non blockstream nodes. in essence centralised gatekeepers of the network.
(hint: FIBRE)

Bob wouldnt deal with alice because shes using p2sh not p2wsh he can opt out. Also things like schnorr signatures will be next after segwit goes live

[franky1]

Also things like schnorr signatures will be next after segwit goes live

schnorr is something else.
schnorr could be added as part of a proper organised hard CONSENSUS event. again schnorr isnt dependant on and only implementaable due to the soft segwit event.

[iCEBREAKER]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY&feature=youtu.be&t=300

That was it. If anyone is supporting Bu/anti-segwit agenda, I don't know what to tell you.

It was clear how Roger Ver is simply not able to form coherent arguments, he is too emotional. Johnny was articulate, calm and collected.

And Johnny isn't even one of main coders. I would like to see Gmaxwell debating on those streams, see if they can keep up to the debate outside of computer screen trolling.

My favorite moment is when Johnny patiently explains to Roger that "his mistake, in technical parlance, is called a layer violation."

Ouch!  Better put some ice on that Roger (you filthy casual).   

[sidhujag]

Also things like schnorr signatures will be next after segwit goes live

schnorr is something else.
schnorr could be added as part of a proper organised hard CONSENSUS event. again schnorr isnt dependant on and only implementaable due to the soft segwit event.

The current proposal for Schnorr Signatures relies on script versioning, a feature which would be introduced by SegWit