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

[Quickseller]

the effective block size, part of segwit, was a compromise meant to appease the big blockers. ironically enough this is the part that most big blockers have the most issues with.

Some people feel that discounting the signatures on SW transactions was to make using LN more economical as the on-chain portion of LN transactions (eg creating and settling LN channels) will be very signature heavy.

2in 2 out... not that heavy

With LN, in order to open a channel, a minimum of two inputs will need to be signed, however LN gives incentives to open many channels, which means that when channels are closed, users will have many outputs they will need to spend, so a more likely minimum after LN has been in use for a while is 4 signed inputs. In order to close a LN channel, users will need to sign a 2-of-2 multisig address to move the BTC to an intermediary address, which is also 2-of-2 multisig, and would need to sign subsequent transaction to move BTC to an address they control. This is 2 signatures minimum to open (which will likely grow to 4), and 4 signatures to close a LN channel. 

the effective block size, part of segwit, was a compromise meant to appease the big blockers. ironically enough this is the part that most big blockers have the most issues with.

Some people feel that discounting the signatures on SW transactions was to make using LN more economical as the on-chain portion of LN transactions (eg creating and settling LN channels) will be very signature heavy.

ya i think so too, the official reasoning core gives seems fishy...

I feel it is their way of picking winners and losers, by calling a HardFork a Soft Fork, and changing the consensus rules.

[1714125168]

1714125168

[1714125168]

1714125168

[1714125168]

1714125168

[1714125168]

1714125168

[franky1]

2in 2 out... not that heavy

With LN, in order to open a channel, a minimum of two inputs will need to be signed, however LN gives incentives to open many channels,

channel is 2in 2 out..
many channels = many 2in 2 out transactions.

many channels does not mean
2channels = 1x with 4 in 4 out
4channels = 1x with 8 in 8 out

it means
2channels = 2x 2in 2 out
4channels = 4x 2in 2 out

[Wind_FURY]

While some of you waste your time trying to figure out what all the irrelevant noise of signaling on Bitcoin doesn't mean, the reality is something that will require re-orienting your thinking.

Bitcoin will never scale without Litecoin. No significant protocol changes will ever be made to Bitcoin. Bitcoiners need to get this nailed into their thick skulls. Read the following:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663070.msg18424568#msg18424568

Bitcoin will achieve maximum value by enabling SegWit on Litecoin. There is no other option going forward. The above linked post explains why in detail.

Bitcoin was designed by Satoshi such that the vested interests would be that no one can change the protocol. No change is ever coming to Bitcoin. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can get unstuck from the mud. Those of you who continue to facilitate this illusion of change coming to Bitcoin's protocol are obstacles in the way of progress.

Altcoins are good competitors to Bitcoin and I think it just needs it.

Incorrect. Most of the speculation value from altcoins ends up in BTC, not in the altcoins. Altcoins are complementary to BTC. The reason BTC percentage of market cap is diving lately is because Bitcoiners are trying to force protocol changes to Bitcoin, instead of doing it on Litecoin, and so no progress is being made at all. Stuck in the mud.

Bitcoiners need to re-orient their thinking. Read my prior post and click the link and read more.

That is another whole argument and something that is highly disputable. With the present state of the Bitcoin network it would not be possible to convert and transfer to Litecoin seamlessly and through trustless means. They say that the Lightning Network is one way to enable atomic transfers from blockchain to blockchain, so maybe we should have that first. Transfers should be done efficiently and securely to make it a practical option.

[jonald_fyookball]

i found this amusing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/634qee/unullc_vandalizing_ethereums_place_what_a_non/

[XVS]

i found this amusing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/634qee/unullc_vandalizing_ethereums_place_what_a_non/

Lol wow, that is hilarious.

[andrew24p]

You guys ruined it all.  Bitcoin is now fucked and getting more fucked everyday.  I think the end in near.

Chart is showing core market value of CORE innovation/progress vs altcoins.
You can allso see that as CORE progress VS alt-coins IMO.
This chart is falling hard and HF can makes new lows.
I think that market is usually give a fair price of items:

Core  would be making progress if BU let it. Miners are blocking segwit, not because they agree with BU, but because it gives them more profit. R/btc loves Jihan who mines 0 mb blocks making transaction fees more expensive, while bitching at core for raising transaction fees. You cant have things both ways. Segwit would literally cause todays immediate problems to disappear because even if all the wallets didnt use it, many will. But the only reason btc doesnt like segwit is because if it passes, they lose leverage on getting a hardfork upgrade. Just fork already I dont give a shit anymore. Id rather a $500 bitcoin with actual upgrades than what we are going through now. Call rogers bluff, call jihans bluff.

[iamnotback]

I'm not a BU loyalist.  I'll support any implementation that allows big blocks and on chain scaling.

and no, segwit isn't meaningful onchain scaling in my view.

Decentralized on chain scaling is technologically impossible with PoW:

https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/631ffe/pools_that_block_litecoin_development/dfr3weo/

If you actually understood the technology, then perhaps you'd change your position to something which can actually scale off chain.

The economic majority wins. Those who are buying LTC now are doing so because they want SegWit to be activated. Jihan Wu of Bitmain who is blocking SegWit on both LTC and BTC, created the new more efficient Scrypt miners, so I didn't realize this before. They could monopolize these in theory. So this fight might not be as easy as I thought. But the economic majority should win, unless it lacks resolve and/or patience. Already people are arbitraging and finding ways to rent hashrate in order to earn money and support SegWit. If you think the price is going up, you try to lock in a rental price that doesn't increase as the price rises, so you can profit. Others may be buying A4s if they want to maximize profits and believe the price will remain high (and going higher).

Jihan Wu needs to get his ass kicked economically so both Bitcoin and Litecoin can move forward.

It is most likely that BU is a diversionary lie. These miners simply want to gouge high fees on Bitcoin and block any alternatives. They were never going to fork with BU. It was a lie to prevent everyone from joining together to kick Jihan's ass.

If my health will improve or stabilize, my plan is to launch a Bitcoin Killer which doesn't require PoW (the design is already completed). I want to bankrupt all these miners. Their vested interests are a pain in the ass. We need to kick all their arses out into the street and turn their ASICs into door stops. I am talking long-term plan.

Those who are buying ASICs now, my plans are a year or more away from reaching any relevancy or size, so fear not. Buy A4s and profit.

Both you guys are obstructionist wolves in sheepskin. You pretend you want to make progress but you are intentionally stalling. Any one with a brain stem can see right through your deceit.

ProHashing is not signaling SegWit thus they are an obstructionist. Their words are meaningless. In a meritocracy only actions count.

"Talk is cheap, show me the code", wrote Linus Torvalds

Also it is quite clear that BU never intended to fork Bitcoin with that Buggy Unlimited piece-of-shit, because they know damn well the economics of Bitcoin are that the whales can and will destroy any miners who attempt to fork Bitcoin. I explained this in great detail on BCT.

BU is a lie and diversionary tactic in order to fool everyone. The real goal of Jihan Wu is to gouge maximize transaction fees from Bitcoin and block any alternatives for scaling. These obstructionists are block progress on both Bitcoin and Litecoin, because Bitcoin depends on Litecoin to add off chain scaling, because the whales of Bitcoin will never allow SegWit on Bitcon. Period. ProHashing by their actions is complicit. Words are meaningless.

Look at your conflicting statements:

He states that we oppose Segregated Witness, which is true. We do not think that SegWit is the best course for bitcoin or litecoin.

We do intend to implement SegWit

A majority of customers have requested SegWit, so we plan to implement it.

Stalling. Deceit. An obstructionist wolf in sheepskin.

the IRS doesn't move its deadline back because of SegWit, and we won't have any business at all if they come after us

Miners should leave such an incompetent company.

Whining in a forum about not being able to do your accounting at the same time you do your technical work.

Of course it is quite clear you are just lying and deceitful.

[andron8383]

Segwit is good technology it allows to make changes without making hard fork.
If miners were smart enough they could have make own versions of segwit.

What is fun free market will push LN with lover quality version on BTC because of BTC bugs.
Miners won't stop LN on bitcoin because they will block LN.
Etherum is perfect exaple of 2nd layer of BTC once BTC stuck their traction started rissing dramatically.
Same time LTC stagnated and only segwit shows some love to LTC before it looked as abandoned product.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-dash-ltc.html

look like nicely ETH is getting traction.
I am sad because hard data shows that ETH is getting into race more than LTC people are value technology more than "Bitmain miners".

If people are so blind that ONE central miners Bitmain can control bitcoin evolution it looks like BTC have lost their decentralized character somewhere. When i look at BU features that is bigger block this is FUCKING joke to me .
BU client have 0 improvements to network or bug fixes. Same time it have own bugs...
Market will move price ETH after segwit LTC up.
Today ETH miners  are earning 80% of BTC ^^.

I believe that to spam network with transaction is bitmain miners job same time they were mining empty blocks,
they have risen transaction fees but instead of LTC booming in transaction number ETH is booming this is so nice to see as lesson for bitmain .
This shows how central planers from bitmain can fuckup ...

[Hyena]

Segwit is good technology it allows to make changes without making hard fork.
If miners were smart enough they could have make own versions of segwit.

What is fun free market will push LN with lover quality version on BTC because of BTC bugs.
Miners won't stop LN on bitcoin because they will block LN.
Etherum is perfect exaple of 2nd layer of BTC once BTC stuck their traction started rissing dramatically.
Same time LTC stagnated and only segwit shows some love to LTC before it looked as abandoned product.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-dash-ltc.html

look like nicely ETH is getting traction.
I am sad because hard data shows that ETH is getting into race more than LTC people are value technology more than "Bitmain miners".

If people are so blind that ONE central miners Bitmain can control bitcoin evolution it looks like BTC have lost their decentralized character somewhere. When i look at BU features that is bigger block this is FUCKING joke to me .
BU client have 0 improvements to network or bug fixes. Same time it have own bugs...
Market will move price ETH after segwit LTC up.
Today ETH miners  are earning 80% of BTC ^^.

I believe that to spam network with transaction is bitmain miners job same time they were mining empty blocks,
they have risen transaction fees but instead of LTC booming in transaction number ETH is booming this is so nice to see as lesson for bitmain .
This shows how central planers from bitmain can fuckup ...

Kind of dumb to be mad on BU because of "no tech improvements". The way I see BU is that they allow me to define my own maximum block size limit. I would happily use Core or Classic or whichever wallet implementation if they allowed me as a full node operator to define the maximum block size limit I am comfortable with. Bitcoin wallet should actually have some plugin system instead of so many different dev teams trying to develop the "real" Bitcoin  wallet. If Bitcoin's reference client had a plugin system I would download and install these two plugins:
* Maximum Block Size Configuration Plugin
* SegWit Transaction Rejection Plugin

[X7]

Segwit is good technology it allows to make changes without making hard fork.
If miners were smart enough they could have make own versions of segwit.

What is fun free market will push LN with lover quality version on BTC because of BTC bugs.
Miners won't stop LN on bitcoin because they will block LN.
Etherum is perfect exaple of 2nd layer of BTC once BTC stuck their traction started rissing dramatically.
Same time LTC stagnated and only segwit shows some love to LTC before it looked as abandoned product.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-dash-ltc.html

look like nicely ETH is getting traction.
I am sad because hard data shows that ETH is getting into race more than LTC people are value technology more than "Bitmain miners".

If people are so blind that ONE central miners Bitmain can control bitcoin evolution it looks like BTC have lost their decentralized character somewhere. When i look at BU features that is bigger block this is FUCKING joke to me .
BU client have 0 improvements to network or bug fixes. Same time it have own bugs...
Market will move price ETH after segwit LTC up.
Today ETH miners  are earning 80% of BTC ^^.

I believe that to spam network with transaction is bitmain miners job same time they were mining empty blocks,
they have risen transaction fees but instead of LTC booming in transaction number ETH is booming this is so nice to see as lesson for bitmain .
This shows how central planers from bitmain can fuckup ...

Kind of dumb to be mad on BU because of "no tech improvements". The way I see BU is that they allow me to define my own maximum block size limit. I would happily use Core or Classic or whichever wallet implementation if they allowed me as a full node operator to define the maximum block size limit I am comfortable with. Bitcoin wallet should actually have some plugin system instead of so many different dev teams trying to develop the "real" Bitcoin  wallet. If Bitcoin's reference client had a plugin system I would download and install these two plugins:
* Maximum Block Size Configuration Plugin
* SegWit Transaction Rejection Plugin

Either you fundamentally do not understand what you are speaking about, or you are a BU shill.

Sure, let's define our centralised block limit under the benevolent reign of our elected BU president.

Gimme a break...

[Hyena]

Either you fundamentally do not understand what you are speaking about, or you are a BU shill.

Sure, let's define our centralised block limit under the benevolent reign of our elected BU president.

Gimme a break...

You don't have the faintest idea what is the definition of centralization. When a person fails to understand the definition of the term they use then there is no point in further argument until definitions have been clarified.

But ok let me babysit you through this.

Decentralization is good, right?

So if every full node operator is allowed to define their own maximum block size limit then it's good.

Centralization is bad, right?

So when Core forces their block size on every full node operator then it's bad.

[traincarswreck]

So if every full node operator is allowed to define their own maximum block size limit then it's good.

Centralization is bad, right?

So when Core forces their block size on every full node operator then it's bad.

Yup perfect roger ver logic.  "bitcoin is like starbux, therefore...."

You would get a C in an 8th grade class for your asinine rhetoric.

[Hyena]

So if every full node operator is allowed to define their own maximum block size limit then it's good.

Centralization is bad, right?

So when Core forces their block size on every full node operator then it's bad.

Yup perfect roger ver logic.  "bitcoin is like starbux, therefore...."

You would get a C in an 8th grade class for your asinine rhetoric.

Hey go ahead and use whatever wallet software you want. I don't give a shit. And let me choose my own.

Bitcoin's protocol is not as rigid as Core wants people to believe. Full node operators have much more power than they think they have and Core does not want this knowledge to spread because they will lose everything if people just woke up to the truth.

Let's take SegWit, for example. Let's say it gets somehow activated. You think you have won? Nope. It's because full node operators who don't want SegWit can configure their full nodes so that SegWit transactions are not relayed. As a result SegWit transactions propagate at a slower rate making LN services that depend on SegWTF suffer losses. You see, soft fork does not save you. Have a taste of your own medicine. You soft fork BTC to activate SegWTF and I will soft fork BTC to blacklist SegWTF transactions. In the end miners get to choose which TXs go to blocks and you can't weed out miners, can you? You could propose switching Bitcoin to PoS but you don't even have stakeholder majority (80% of bitcoin holders think BU is better than SegWit), you are a sore loser and I laugh into my palm as I write.

[DGulari]

SegWit you are a sore loser and I laugh into my palm as I write.

Amen brother.  Nodes can just ignore that SegWit crap and push down their bullshit soft fork. 

Core got out of control and drunk on their own power kool aid thinking they can take over the network to please $70million investment.  They need to be kicked out permanently.  Take away their commit access.  Surely there are enough people with enough talent not on the Blockstream payroll that we will be able to continue.  So BU is a little balky in the early days.  I am pretty sure that will be fixed real fast. 

SegWit is junk and people figured it out.  Time to move on.

[aarturka]

I am pretty sure that will be fixed real fast. 

SegWit is junk and people figured it out.

You are lunatic. There's no more than doz of morons that shill for BTU. All bitcoiners support Segwit

[kiklo]

I am pretty sure that will be fixed real fast. 

SegWit is junk and people figured it out.

You are lunatic. There's no more than doz of morons that shill for BTU. All bitcoiners support Segwit

Guess the majority of the Bitcoin miners are not bitcoiners then. 

 

FYI:
Segwit is for NITWITS. 

[aarturka]

Guess the majority of the Bitcoin miners are not bitcoiners then. 

you mean stupid greedy Wu and his puppets? I can't call them solid bitcoiners, obviously they think only about their income and not about essential Bitcoin value like decentralization, they are using their hash advantage to break and hinder bitcoin progress, they may short bitcoin and pump some alts like Roger Ver does.

[Hyena]

Guess the majority of the Bitcoin miners are not bitcoiners then. 

you mean stupid greedy Wu and his puppets? I can't call them solid bitcoiners, obviously they think only about their income and not about essential Bitcoin value like decentralization, they are using their hash advantage to break and hinder bitcoin progress, they may short bitcoin and pump some alts like Roger Ver does.

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation. I'll bet there's a documented mental pathology to describe your condition ... probably something to do with the frontal lobe.

[DGulari]

All bitcoiners support Segwit

Typical Blockstream flunky moron. 

[aarturka]

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle