Bitcoin Forum
April 28, 2017, 12:21:52 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN  (Read 868 times)
chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


Ιntergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 10:17:31 PM
 #21

the most of ppl in bitcoin ecosystem seems to be happy if you guys fork off the network because it seems you are the most toxic ppl.

lol
first you blockstreamers spread fear of a fork....
then you beg and demand a fork

yet the non-blockstreamers want to remain as one independant diverse consensus single network.

so i will just laugh at all the fear then begs of fork hypocrisy

yeah...ok...whatever Tongue

1493382112
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493382112

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1493382112
Reply with quote  #2

1493382112
Report to moderator
1493382112
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493382112

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1493382112
Reply with quote  #2

1493382112
Report to moderator
1493382112
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493382112

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1493382112
Reply with quote  #2

1493382112
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1493382112
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493382112

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1493382112
Reply with quote  #2

1493382112
Report to moderator
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 10:43:19 PM
 #22

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

Look, I am one of the biggest BU supporters here and I would have no problem with LN + bigger blocks!
That way the market can at least have some free choice how it wants to scale.

But you have to understand core delayed delayed delayed.... They could come out TODAY and capitulate and propose
a blocksize increase and it would probably end this war...but they are so stubborn and arrogant
that they will fight to the end, even if it means trying to fight after a fork happens, even if it means
destroying Bitcoin in hopes that they remain in control.  


-ck
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
March 20, 2017, 10:44:14 PM
 #23

Presumably your explanation will be that these successful businessmen are sufficiently idiotic that they are incapable of understanding, despite being successful businessmen
...Yes? This is the group that chose BU as their protest vote.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at ckpool.org Solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


Ιntergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 10:45:50 PM
 #24

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

Look, I am one of the biggest BU supporters here and I would have no problem with LN + bigger blocks!
That way the market can at least have some free choice how it wants to scale.

But you have to understand core delayed delayed delayed.... They could come out TODAY and capitulate and propose
a blocksize increase and it would probably end this war...but they are so stubborn and arrogant
that they will fight to the end, even if it means trying to fight after a fork happens, even if it means
destroying Bitcoin in hopes that they remain in control.  



if they are in control why segwit not activate until now?

plexasm
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 10:51:28 PM
 #25

I read that Jihan owns 80% of hashing for LTC, which explains perfectly why they can't get SegWit passed on the LTC network.

Really childish, he doesn't want people to see the benefits of SegWit (great for users) so he's shunning it out.

This type of stuff is why BU is highly unpopular amongst users.
plexasm
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 10:56:12 PM
 #26

The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

Look, I am one of the biggest BU supporters here and I would have no problem with LN + bigger blocks!
That way the market can at least have some free choice how it wants to scale.

But you have to understand core delayed delayed delayed.... They could come out TODAY and capitulate and propose
a blocksize increase and it would probably end this war...but they are so stubborn and arrogant
that they will fight to the end, even if it means trying to fight after a fork happens, even if it means
destroying Bitcoin in hopes that they remain in control.  



You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.

it's pretty simple. Segwit is great for users, not so great for miners. Miners don't benefit from transactions made on LN. BU is in bed with big-name miners. They are colluding to keep Segwit out. Roger is a key player simply because he owns Bitcoin.com

The BU side is now propping up these useless alts that no one even wants to accept to try and drive money out of BTC. That is really dirty, will not be forgotten & ultimately ensure they will never see their vision pass.

The fear tactics they're using will ensure they will lose. Horrible politicians.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:00:22 PM
 #27



You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
 

I don't support Segwit, and never implied to say that.  I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks", meaning simply changing the one line of code which has a block limit.



if they are in control why segwit not activate until now?

Its hard to change (get consensus) on major changes.  (But they are using that to their advantage to NOT change the 1mb limit.)

plexasm
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:02:09 PM
 #28



You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
 

I don't support Segwit, and never implied to say that.  I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks", meaning simply changing the one line of code which has a block limit.

It's my understanding that Segwit already includes bigger blocks

"when segwit is deployed, that will mean 2 megabyte or larger blocks may need to be downloaded"

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:03:39 PM
 #29



You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
 

I don't support Segwit, and never implied to say that.  I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks", meaning simply changing the one line of code which has a block limit.

It's my understanding that Segwit already includes bigger blocks

"when segwit is deployed, that will mean 2 megabyte or larger blocks may need to be downloaded"

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Ok... what's your point then?

plexasm
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:05:42 PM
 #30



You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
 

I don't support Segwit, and never implied to say that.  I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks", meaning simply changing the one line of code which has a block limit.

It's my understanding that Segwit already includes bigger blocks

"when segwit is deployed, that will mean 2 megabyte or larger blocks may need to be downloaded"

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Ok... what's your point then?

" I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks" "

So you support SegWit..?
Lernerz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:07:58 PM
 #31

Lightning on the contrary will increase the number of transactions in the blockchain. The user base of bitcoin for micropayments will grow exponent. Therefore, bitcoin will need to synchronize more transactions into the blochchain (when payment channel close ) and miners give more commissions.

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:09:15 PM
 #32



You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
 

I don't support Segwit, and never implied to say that.  I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks", meaning simply changing the one line of code which has a block limit.

It's my understanding that Segwit already includes bigger blocks

"when segwit is deployed, that will mean 2 megabyte or larger blocks may need to be downloaded"

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Ok... what's your point then?

" I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks" "

So you support SegWit..?


Let me rephrase my statement to more clearly communicate my position, since you seem to want to twist it.

I do not support Segwit.   I would support LN plus a blocksize increase via a single line of code change that raises the maxblocksize variable that is currently set to 1mb.


Killerpotleaf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:10:05 PM
 #33

Lightning on the contrary will increase the number of transactions in the blockchain. The user base of bitcoin for micropayments will grow exponent. Therefore, bitcoin will need to synchronize more transactions into the blochchain and miners give more commissions.

there is no reason why we need segwit to do this.
what we need is bigger blocks and TX_ID malleability fix.
both of these need to be HFs
because if you run a node its your responsibility to run a well oiled machine. not a half broken lets pretend it still works depreciated version
Lernerz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:13:59 PM
 #34



You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
 

I don't support Segwit, and never implied to say that.  I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks", meaning simply changing the one line of code which has a block limit.

It's my understanding that Segwit already includes bigger blocks

"when segwit is deployed, that will mean 2 megabyte or larger blocks may need to be downloaded"

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Ok... what's your point then?

" I said I would support "LN + bigger blocks" "

So you support SegWit..?


Let me rephrase my statement to more clearly communicate my position, since you seem to want to twist it.

I do not support Segwit.   I would support LN plus a blocksize increase via a single line of code change that raises the maxblocksize variable that is currently set to 1mb.



Capitalism began to develop rapidly with the specialization of tasks. This led to a roust of standard of living. The same principle applies to bitcoin.

Everyone should do what he does best. Let programmers Bitcoin Core (since 2009) do their work. The work of the miners is not to engage in politics and create their own Bitcoin clients. The task of the miners is only to confirm the transactions.

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:25:59 PM
 #35


Capitalism began to develop rapidly with the specialization of tasks. This led to a roust of standard of living. The same principle applies to bitcoin.

Everyone should do what he does best. Let programmers Bitcoin Core (since 2009) do their work. The work of the miners is not to engage in politics and create their own Bitcoin clients. The task of the miners is only to confirm the transactions.

Sure, but A) why does it have to be 'core' necessarily?  I thought capitalism promoted competition, right? and B) you have core making economic decisions, not just programming decisions.  They should leave that to the economists according to your logic.  Developers are supposed to code what the client wants, not tell them they think they need.

franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1666



View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:45:05 PM
 #36

You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
segwit offers no 2mb PROMISE at activation nor 4mb promise

after activation. people need to voluntarily move their funds from native keys to segwit keys so that the ratio of segwit txdata:signature can change the weight
where the txdata sits in the base and the signature sits outside the base.

if only 10% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~1.1mb of total weight
if only 50% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~1.55mb of total weight
if 100% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~2.1mb of total weight

but dont expect EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs.
oh and also spammers will stick to native keys and spam the base block to not give segwit key users space for their txdata. thus you wont get 2.1mb 'best estimate/hope'
oh and segwit does not prevent spammers... another segwit promise broken...


it's pretty simple. Segwit is great for users, not so great for miners.
segwit is not dependant on activation its dependant on users using segwit keypairs AFTER activation.
segwit does not disarm or stop native keys from being used and so the malleation and sigop spammers will still use native keys to bloat the base block

Miners don't benefit from transactions made on LN.
actually miners do. miners dont care about tx fee right now its just a bonus. whether the tx they add is a LN multisig or a native tx makes no difference.

however segwit offers a 75% discount. so miners get less for adding segwit tx's...
EG
a native keypair LN earns a pool more than a segwit keypair LN.

BU is in bed with big-name miners. They are colluding to keep Segwit out. Roger is a key player simply because he owns Bitcoin.com

care to take a stab at the VC funders behind BTCC and slush, which were both very quick to flag yes to segwit without waiting a few weeks to see what nodes do or peer review the code at launchday. they automatically just kissed segwit ass without thinking.

The BU side is now propping up these useless alts that no one even wants to accept to try and drive money out of BTC. That is really dirty, will not be forgotten & ultimately ensure they will never see their vision pass.
lol gmaxwell Monero Zcash
barry silbert (the big cheeze VC of the blockstream/corporation camp) monero zcash ethereum
(ever wondered why coinbase added ethereum.. (check out barry silberts $6m VC investment into coinbase)
The fear tactics they're using will ensure they will lose. Horrible politicians.

fear tactics?
non-core have no deadlines no ban hammer no need for upstream filtering, no net for new keypairs. no desire to split the network.

its core that want non-core to split away, first using fear, then begging and pleading non-core implementations to actually fork. all because non-core believe in sticking with real consensus of multiple implementations all on the same playing field increasing diversity to secure bitcoins decentralisation of a peer network. where as core want a TIER control network

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
rizzlarolla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
March 20, 2017, 11:51:33 PM
 #37

It seems that Jihan and part of Chinese miners affraid that with lighting network they will lost their fee market.

No, it is core's fee market, not Jihan's. Jihan is more likely worried about Bitcoin.

The work of the miners is not to engage in politics and create their own Bitcoin clients. The task of the miners is only to confirm the transactions.

No, part of the miners job is to protect their business against attackers, thereby protecting the network.
You expect them to just stand by even if they think core (or any other) will destroy them/Bitcoin. You need to think again.

What makes a newbie like you think he know's better than Jihan?
andron8383
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


TaaS is a closed-end fund designated to blockchain


View Profile
March 21, 2017, 10:12:00 PM
 #38

It seems that Jihan and part of Chinese miners affraid that with lighting network they will lost their fee market.
***
No, it is core's fee market, not Jihan's. Jihan is more likely worried about Bitcoin.
***

Jihan is worried about how much he can mine $$$ Miners cares about profit that is why while there is full mempool
block were filled with 50% they gram only biggest fees.
Miners cares only about profits.

Whole hash-rate debate is currently about few big players while BTC community is tied in ring.
Etherum and Dash is taking its place - Nice / they always had problems with getting new people on board but now
BTC is helping them switch to alts. I think that market will make them broken at some point.
BTC looks like has good spot at 1000$ that fee 0.0002BTC is capping it Cheesy

From me 1MB is nothing they need 10MB ti rise again like 10x then 100MB to next 10x.
More users more data but it can be offshore by LN and help them get 100x ...
Miners are short therm minded.

That case with LTC prooves where is BTC heading with one CENTRAL MINER Cheesy
BTC wil be like LTC at 4$ all improvements will be blocked by miners.

Silberman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
March 22, 2017, 02:24:09 AM
 #39

It seems that Jihan and part of Chinese miners affraid that with lighting network they will lost their fee market.
This post came today from Jihan in chinese 8btc forum and is very clear to this

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/#oo

It seems is and the main reason why they block segwit activation obviously because lighting network cant work properly without segwit.
Always bitcoin ecosystem has different parts with different economical profit models.
Miners profits from fees, high bitcoin price and from many bitcoin transaction in blocks.
Exchanges profit from trade orders and price volatility.
Bitcoin startups like Blockstream profit when their technical solution can farther develop.
The problem now is how all of them come together and agree to a win-win solution?

I think it is natural that miners don’t like segwit that much since they feel their interests are going to be affected by it, if you get a reduction in your salary but you still need to work as hard, would you still be as happy with your job.

TIDEX ▬▬ .CRYPTO COINS AND ASSET TRADING. ▬▬ TIDEX
▬▬▰▰▬▬▰▰▰▬▬▰▰▰▬▬▰▰▰▬▬▰▰▬▬
NEW EXCHANGE   ZERO FEES
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!