Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[jonald_fyookball]

:)will we ever get bigger blocks with segwit or EC?

this is taking way to long...

That seems to be the thought that is currently in the air waves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1845949.0

[1715567051]

1715567051

[1715567051]

1715567051

[xyzzy099]

I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

I think you have here revealed the 'core' of your outrage...  My impression is that most (all?) of the members of the 'bigger blocks now, at any cost' crowd are people who ultimately view Bitcoin as their get-rich-quick scheme, and have no real concern at all for the long-term technological success of Bitcoin.

That's fine by me - I have nothing against people striving to promote their own enlightened self-interest - but you should at least be honest about it and quit pretending that your concerns are technical ones.

[jonald_fyookball]

I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

I think you have here revealed the 'core' of your outrage...  My impression is that most (all?) of the members of the 'bigger blocks now, at any cost' crowd are people who ultimately view Bitcoin as their get-rich-quick scheme, and have no real concern at all for the long-term technological success of Bitcoin.

That's fine by me - I have nothing against people striving to promote their own enlightened self-interest - but you should at least be honest about it and quit pretending that your concerns are technical ones.

I've openly stated many times that I'm a bitcoin investor, but I am a long term investor, not someone chasing a get rich quick scheme.

[OneUnderBridge]

I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

I think you have here revealed the 'core' of your outrage...  My impression is that most (all?) of the members of the 'bigger blocks now, at any cost' crowd are people who ultimately view Bitcoin as their get-rich-quick scheme, and have no real concern at all for the long-term technological success of Bitcoin.

That's fine by me - I have nothing against people striving to promote their own enlightened self-interest - but you should at least be honest about it and quit pretending that your concerns are technical ones.

Wait? Really? I view it as the complete opposite. I'm curious; can you enlighten me with your reasoning on what gives you that impression?

[jonald_fyookball]

Made it to Youtube lol.

https://youtu.be/XHAOq15cx_8

[traincarswreck]

I've openly stated many times that I'm a bitcoin investor, but I am a long term investor, not someone chasing a get rich quick scheme.

The problem is that there is no such future for an investor regardless of longterm.  If bitcoin is to move in the direction of an optimal medium of exchange then eventually it will need to peel away from its digital gold quality as an inflation hedge.  There will be pressure to devalue it.  The reason there is little adoption of bitcoin right now is the steady increase in value encourages savings and not spending, its NOT because of the block-size problem.

The belief that you can raise the transaction per second to create a better investment for yourself is assbackwards thinking by people who don't have the ability to think beyond 1 level.

[iamnotback]

The problem is that there is no such future for an investor regardless of longterm.  If bitcoin is to move in the direction of an optimal medium of exchange then eventually it will need to peel away from its digital gold quality as an inflation hedge.  There will be pressure to devalue it.  The reason there is little adoption of bitcoin right now is the steady increase in value encourages savings and not spending, its NOT because of the block-size problem.

The belief that you can raise the transaction per second to create a better investment for yourself is assbackwards thinking by people who don't have the ability to think beyond 1 level.

I am going to throw you another curve ball. What if the amount spent on transactions is very tiny compared to the savings piled into investment, but the economic value of those transactions is orders-of-magnitude more valuable than the investment in the tokens. This is very possible. Observe me show you how it is done with my project OpenShare.

[traincarswreck]

I am going to throw you another curve ball. What if the amount spent on transactions is very tiny compared to the savings piled into investment, but the economic value of those transactions is orders-of-magnitude more valuable than the investment in the tokens. This is very possible. Observe me show you how it is done with my project OpenShare.

Why would someone spend or part with something that is increasing in value?

[iamnotback]

I am going to throw you another curve ball. What if the amount spent on transactions is very tiny compared to the savings piled into investment, but the economic value of those transactions is orders-of-magnitude more valuable than the investment in the tokens. This is very possible. Observe me show you how it is done with my project OpenShare.

Why would someone spend or part with something that is increasing in value?

What part of trading miniscule transaction amounts for much larger value did you not understand?

The curve ball is that the value exchanged in non-fungible, i.e. isn't directly monetized. For example, paying 0.1 BTC per month to be able to publish your academic papers. The value enabled is much more than the value transferred monetarily. Now imagine blockchains open new markets of value which didn't exist before. Voila! Bitcoin destroyed. Watch it happen.

[traincarswreck]

What part of trading miniscule transaction amounts for much larger value did you not understand?

The curve ball is that the value exchanged in non-fungible, i.e. isn't directly monetized. For example, paying 0.1 BTC per month to be able to publish your academic papers. The value enabled is much more than the value transferred monetarily. Now imagine blockchains open new markets of value which didn't exist before. Voila! Bitcoin destroyed. Watch it happen.

ah, so no one would want to save this money but just spend it!?

[iamnotback]

What part of trading miniscule transaction amounts for much larger value did you not understand?

The curve ball is that the value exchanged in non-fungible, i.e. isn't directly monetized. For example, paying 0.1 BTC per month to be able to publish your academic papers. The value enabled is much more than the value transferred monetarily. Now imagine blockchains open new markets of value which didn't exist before. Voila! Bitcoin destroyed. Watch it happen.

ah, so no one would want to save this money but just spend it!?

Afaics, that will not be correct. They only want to spend when they have some activity which is more valuable to spend it on, but those opportunities are not unbounded for each person, although multipied by our human population of 6+ billion the potential is IMO staggering. Sorry I can't really entirely elaborate the concept I have for the knowledge age entirely in this post. Afaics, the two concepts (investment/savings and spending) can co-exist, but not in Bitcoin because security would be destroyed with large blocks (because then whales can't replace the mining cartel when they need to ... this game theory was explained in the other thread).

[Alex.BTC]

I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

I think you have here revealed the 'core' of your outrage...  My impression is that most (all?) of the members of the 'bigger blocks now, at any cost' crowd are people who ultimately view Bitcoin as their get-rich-quick scheme, and have no real concern at all for the long-term technological success of Bitcoin.

That's fine by me - I have nothing against people striving to promote their own enlightened self-interest - but you should at least be honest about it and quit pretending that your concerns are technical ones.

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who knows next to nothing about the actual problem, if you do, you wouldn't use 'my impression', you would use actual numbers and basic math.

Here is the technical details on why Blockstream/Core is a bunch of lying fucks, I just fact slapped another shill in another thread, so I'll just copy it here (already translated to layman terms):

The 1MB limit IS causing the spam problem, and Blockstream/Core continue to do nothing about it.

Today Bitcoin tx traffic have already reached 1MB every 10mins, since the blocksize limit is also 1MB and you only get 1 block every 10mins on average, spammers can now easily flood the mempool by generating a small amount of tx.

Once the mempool is flooded, tx takes longer to process, users get impatient, they pay more fees, fees go up, miners process higher fee tx first, all the minimum fee spam stay stuck at the bottom of the mempool, they timeout and get deleted before being processed by miners.

If spammers don't set a minimum fee in their spam, the spam will be dropped by nodes before reaching the mempool, but spammer only pay the fee when the tx is actually processed by miners.

So, once the mempool is full and the fee is high, spammer's spam never get processed, spammer can continue to flood the mempool for days paying zero fee.

Blockstream refused to increase the blocksize, so we get huge 50000tx mempool backlog today, because spammers don't have to pay their fees.

If they increase the blocksize, then for every 1MB blocksize increase, we can fit another 2000 tx per block, at 4MB we can fit 8000tx per block.

If normal traffic is 1M and the limit is 4M, spammer have to pay a very high combined min fee to flood a block (min fee x 8000 per block), then, if they continue to spam, any mishap, such as miners get lucky and mine a few blocks quickly within 10 minutes, 'eating' all the spam, then spammers have to pay the fee for almost the entire 4MB spam block.

At 4MB, it'll be too costly for spammers to spam, until normal traffic reaches 4MB and they can flood without paying fee again.

If we increase the blocksize from 1MB to 2MB or 4MB now, it will give room for Bitcoin to grow as well as reduce spam.

This truth is so simple that's why Blockstream/Core have to create all kinds of red herrings/bullshit excuses/censorships/trolls to justify keeping the blocksize at 1MB. If they stop distracting you from the actual and simple problem for just 1 second, you'll immediately find out they've been lying their asses off for years.

The 1MB limit was added in 2010 because tx fee was 0 at the time, the network was young and was growing slowly, average block size was less than 1k, and Satoshi didn't want to see the blockchain full of 32MB blocks filled with 0 fee spam.

You keep hearing all these fuck face morons talking about how SW/LN will save the day, or that we can't keep increasing the blocksize forever, but at this moment Bitcoin isn't even popular enough for SW/LN, the safety limit is above 4MB, we shouldn't even talk about side chains until we have enough tx to fill 4MB blocks every 10 minutes, or 13tx/sec (we are only at 3tx/sec at the moment).

We are having a tx jam right now, so by not increasing the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core either have absolutely no idea what they're doing, or they're just pricks blatantly lying their asses off.

[franky1]

to add to Alex.btc point.

does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to disarm themselves by using segwit keypairs.. nope they wont
does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to lock into a channel just to spam offchain.. nope they wont.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block.. then forget segwit tx's mitigating that because if a segwit cant get its tx data into the baseblock it cant get its signature sat outside the baseblock.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block..then a LN channel cant gt its deposit/close channel tx into the baseblock.

segwit and LN do not kill spammers. they only move innocent volunteers data away from the baseblock partially or fully.

[Alex.BTC]

to add to Alex.btc point.

does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to disarm themselves by using segwit keypairs.. nope they wont
does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to lock into a channel just to spam offchain.. nope they wont.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block.. then forget segwit tx's mitigating that because if a segwit cant get its tx data into the baseblock it cant get its signature sat outside the baseblock.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block..then a LN channel cant gt its deposit/close channel tx into the baseblock.

segwit and LN do not kill spammers. they only move innocent volunteers data away from the baseblock partially or fully.

Most of the FukWit shills don't even know how FukWit works themselves, because that piece of shit is 50000 lines long, changes everything and haven't even been fucking tested in the real world yet.

[franky1]

to add to Alex.btc point.

does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to disarm themselves by using segwit keypairs.. nope they wont
does anyone actually think intentional spammers are going to lock into a channel just to spam offchain.. nope they wont.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block.. then forget segwit tx's mitigating that because if a segwit cant get its tx data into the baseblock it cant get its signature sat outside the baseblock.

if a spammer is throwing lets say 2000 tx into the base block..then a LN channel cant gt its deposit/close channel tx into the baseblock.

segwit and LN do not kill spammers. they only move innocent volunteers data away from the baseblock partially or fully.

Most of the FukWit shills don't even know how FukWit works themselves, because that piece of shit is 50000 lines long, changes everything and haven't even been fucking tested in the real world yet.

yep.
analogy:
much like them saying ethereum has been "tested thoroughly" for  years on its own networks
but try dropping ethereum keypairs and ethereum block formations and new scripts into bitcoin by november.
along with the TIER network of upstream filter node..goodluck

oh and trying to get 46mill UTXO's to spend and move funds to segwit keys just to try getting the "fixes".. but as i said malicious spammers wont us segwit keys = quadratics/malleation not solved on the network. only solved by the volunteers that choose to use disarmed keypairs. who still have to fight for room amungst the armed native spammers

[Alex.BTC]

yep.
analogy:
much like them saying ethereum has been "tested thoroughly" for  years on its own networks
but try dropping ethereum keypairs and ethereum block formations and new scripts into bitcoin by november.
along with the TIER network of upstream filter node..goodluck

oh and trying to get 46mill UTXO's to spend and move funds to segwit keys just to try getting the "fixes".. but as i said malicious spammers wont us segwit keys = quadratics/malleation not solved on the network. only solved by the volunteers that choose to use disarmed keypairs. who still have to fight for room amungst the armed native spammers

Looking at all the recent ETH news spam, and the fact that ETH is heavily funded by wall street, don't be surprised if Greg Maxwell 'moves on' to work with ETH in a few years after ETH is a success and Bitcoin is fucked.

ETH is actually very interesting, I look forward to its success, I just don't like seeing Bitcoin being sacrificed for it, if it is.

[xyzzy099]

I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

I think you have here revealed the 'core' of your outrage...  My impression is that most (all?) of the members of the 'bigger blocks now, at any cost' crowd are people who ultimately view Bitcoin as their get-rich-quick scheme, and have no real concern at all for the long-term technological success of Bitcoin.

That's fine by me - I have nothing against people striving to promote their own enlightened self-interest - but you should at least be honest about it and quit pretending that your concerns are technical ones.

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who knows next to nothing about the actual problem, if you do, you wouldn't use 'my impression', you would use actual numbers and basic math.

<BLAH BLAH BLAH>

I haven't talked ANY shit at all, just expressed an opinion.  If you don't like my opinion, well, fuck you.  You don't have to like it.

I expressed my impression of people's motivations.  How, pray tell, can I mathematically represent those motivations?

I have no intention of re-arguing the technical arguments that have been already argued to death on this forum and elsewhere.  I will just say that if you think you are actually smarter than people whose work formed the foundation of Bitcoin, like Nick Szabo and Adam Back then you are just an idiot.

[traincarswreck]

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who knows next to nothing about the actual problem, if you do, you wouldn't use 'my impression', you would use actual numbers and basic math.

Here is the technical details on why Blockstream/Core is a bunch of lying fucks, I just fact slapped another shill in another thread, so I'll just copy it here (already translated to layman terms):

Who let the child idiot into the thread?

We are having a tx jam right now, so by not increasing the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core either have absolutely no idea what they're doing, or they're just pricks blatantly lying their asses off.

Or...or, or maybe you don't understand many things in this world and you learned how to swear on the internet and post in places where  you aren't accountable for the stupid shit you type.

[jonald_fyookball]

I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

I think you have here revealed the 'core' of your outrage...  My impression is that most (all?) of the members of the 'bigger blocks now, at any cost' crowd are people who ultimately view Bitcoin as their get-rich-quick scheme, and have no real concern at all for the long-term technological success of Bitcoin.

That's fine by me - I have nothing against people striving to promote their own enlightened self-interest - but you should at least be honest about it and quit pretending that your concerns are technical ones.

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who knows next to nothing about the actual problem, if you do, you wouldn't use 'my impression', you would use actual numbers and basic math.

<BLAH BLAH BLAH>

I haven't talked ANY shit at all, just expressed an opinion.  If you don't like my opinion, well, fuck you.  You don't have to like it.

I expressed my impression of people's motivations.  How, pray tell, can I mathematically represent those motivations?

I have no intention of re-arguing the technical arguments that have been already argued to death on this forum and elsewhere.  I will just say that if you think you are actually smarter than people whose work formed the foundation of Bitcoin, like Nick Szabo and Adam Back then you are just an idiot.

In all fairness though, your comment did seem to imply that there's not really a technically issue ("blocks aren't really full, bigblockers are just greedy").  Is this not what you intended to say?

[zimmah]

I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

I think you have here revealed the 'core' of your outrage...  My impression is that most (all?) of the members of the 'bigger blocks now, at any cost' crowd are people who ultimately view Bitcoin as their get-rich-quick scheme, and have no real concern at all for the long-term technological success of Bitcoin.

That's fine by me - I have nothing against people striving to promote their own enlightened self-interest - but you should at least be honest about it and quit pretending that your concerns are technical ones.

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who knows next to nothing about the actual problem, if you do, you wouldn't use 'my impression', you would use actual numbers and basic math.

<BLAH BLAH BLAH>

I haven't talked ANY shit at all, just expressed an opinion.  If you don't like my opinion, well, fuck you.  You don't have to like it.

I expressed my impression of people's motivations.  How, pray tell, can I mathematically represent those motivations?

I have no intention of re-arguing the technical arguments that have been already argued to death on this forum and elsewhere.  I will just say that if you think you are actually smarter than people whose work formed the foundation of Bitcoin, like Nick Szabo and Adam Back then you are just an idiot.

I invested in bitcoin before these so called "founders of bitcoin".       
   
And no matter if they're smarter then me or not, that doesn't mean I should trust them.       
   
Smart people can be evil too, and Adam Back is demonstrably evil. I don't care if he's smart or not.   

In fact, Smart Evil persons are even worse because they're more creative in their scams.     

A lot of successful con artists are very smart, and they usually benefit from dumb people. By blindly following people just because you're smart you're setting yourself up for scams.