Bitcoin Forum
March 30, 2020, 05:38:24 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell  (Read 45970 times)
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:07:41 PM
 #81



Scientific reasoning as to what?
That increasing the blocksize/transaction capacity will increase the value of the network. There is no founded argument for such a claim, which is exactly why supporters of it are just loudmouth accounts that avoid proper dialogue.
1585589904
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585589904

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585589904
Reply with quote  #2

1585589904
Report to moderator
1585589904
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585589904

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585589904
Reply with quote  #2

1585589904
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:10:02 PM
 #82



Scientific reasoning as to what?
That increasing the blocksize/transaction capacity will increase the value of the network. There is no founded argument for such a claim, which is exactly why supporters of it are just loudmouth accounts that avoid proper dialogue.

Your weird theories are a distraction from discussing the real issues.  Everyone on both sides of the debates wants more capacity in one form or another.  I'm putting you on ignore and suggest others do the same.  Sorry.


traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:15:06 PM
 #83



Your weird theories are a distraction from discussing the real issues.  Everyone on both sides of the debates wants more capacity in one form or another.  I'm putting you on ignore and suggest others do the same.  Sorry.


My theory that arguments need to be scientifically founded to have validity? Not everyone wants more capacity, there are a few rational players that are fine with status quo, Maxwell even recently said something to this regard. Doesn't surprise me at all that you choose to ignore such a point that arguments should be scientifically founded-you don't know what that means.  You don't know that arguments CAN be founded in science, and you are one of many posters and people in this community that is loud and opinionated because you have no understanding of the subject.
Hyena
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1002



View Profile WWW
March 26, 2017, 04:37:28 PM
 #84

I want bigger blocks but without segwit soft fork. I would accept segwit as a proper protocol upgrade though (not as a soft fork). Thankfully BU team is already working on SegWit as a hard fork solution.

Oznog
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 64
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 26, 2017, 04:49:26 PM
Last edit: March 26, 2017, 09:29:53 PM by Oznog
 #85

I don't force anyone to do anything.
Someone is limiting transfers per second, stealing commissions from the miners and fucking Bitcoin.



If you have not been, can I explain who is responsible?
flound1129
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000


www.multipool.us


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
 #86

Greg has openly called for full blocks and a fee market (which we have right now).

If blocks are empty, then when the reward drops to zero how will miners get paid?


If LN siphons off the majority of network fees, how will miners get paid?

Multipool - Always mine the most profitable coin - Scrypt, X11 or SHA-256!
rambeazle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 244
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:55:25 PM
 #87

This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin due to Core's roadmap.
They may be expert programers,  but they don't understand that Bitcoin is only valuable if it is useful, and their roadmap is destroying its usefulness.
Full blocks and the high fees and backlog that they create are destroying Bitcoin's comparative advantage and driving people to use alt coins instead.
Absolute bullshit, based on NO economic theory whatsoever.

Roger is perpetuating a myth, that only those that do not understand economic theory will believe in.  It is absolutely not true that raising bitcoin's transaction capacity will raise its value.  Doing so will destroy bitcoin's quality as a digital gold.  Ver wants control of bitcoin and he wants to break it because he is a power hungry child that has absolutely no understanding of economics.

Satoshi built this system, much like the foundation for the US government system, such that a faction like Ver's brigade CANNOT override the consensus mechanism and usurp the system's security.

There is absolutely no scientifically founded argument for the drivel Ver is spouting which is exactly why he never says anything but things like "Bitcoin is like Starbux therefore...".

Thinking bitcoin needs more and more uses cases and that we must guard bitcoin's utility as a coffee money is to completely not understand bitcoin's macro-economic relationship to our global economy.  Raising bitcoin's transaction capacity solves no significant problem whatsoever.

People like Roger that subscribe to this myth do not understand what money is for. Money as a medium of exchange is not a significant solution to anything.  The significant purpose for money to exist is to provide a pricing mechanism for the markets so that they may operate efficiently.

It is the VALUE proposition that must be guarded in regard to bitcoin and changing the implied tps absolutely alters and effectively destroys the stability of this proposition.

Ver will never enter dialogue with me on this because I will absolutely school him on the subject with truth founded in accepted and basic (macro)-economic argument.

Keep yelling, keep having tantrums, keep banning people from your community who will explain what is wrong with your understanding.  You have only one hope Roger, to destroy your wealth, it's logically impossible to do what you are trying to do. Satoshi is laughing at you, Szabo is laughing at, and anyone who understands economics is appalled by your argument.

You are a communist block-chain Keynesian in (not very good) disguise, you do NOT understand economics and you have no idea what money is for or how it works.

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-absurdity-of-communism-and-hard-forking-bitcoin-to-coup-core-4486aa9191c8#.ouf5gdbgz




Great post. Fuck Roger Ver.
wormbog
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 561
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:57:28 PM
 #88

I want bigger blocks but without segwit soft fork. I would accept segwit as a proper protocol upgrade though (not as a soft fork). Thankfully BU team is already working on SegWit as a hard fork solution.

I'm proposing a hard fork with 4MB blocks and segwit. No soft fork. Sounds like that meets your requirements.
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:59:14 PM
 #89


If LN siphons off the majority of network fees, how will miners get paid?
Your premise wrong, and you have shown to the community you don't understand the subject you are referring to.
Hyena
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086
Merit: 1002



View Profile WWW
March 26, 2017, 05:03:02 PM
 #90

I want bigger blocks but without segwit soft fork. I would accept segwit as a proper protocol upgrade though (not as a soft fork). Thankfully BU team is already working on SegWit as a hard fork solution.

I'm proposing a hard fork with 4MB blocks and segwit. No soft fork. Sounds like that meets your requirements.

Yes that would be good. I don't care about BU, roger ver and this whole dumb king of the hill power struggle. I simply want bigger blocks and a proper, clean, elegant protocol upgrade which can only be done as a hard fork. That's actually what I like best about the Bitcoin Classic team. They want to get rid off all the technical debt Bitcoin has accumulated over the years.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1653



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:05:49 PM
 #91



Your weird theories are a distraction from discussing the real issues.  Everyone on both sides of the debates wants more capacity in one form or another.  I'm putting you on ignore and suggest others do the same.  Sorry.


My theory that arguments need to be scientifically founded to have validity? Not everyone wants more capacity, there are a few rational players that are fine with status quo, Maxwell even recently said something to this regard.

because gmaxwell is NOT thinking about or caring about the more transactions = more utility value onchain
he is thinking with the less transactions = less utility value onchain = more utility value offchain = more economics value for himself to get greedy fee's by blockstream and DCG running LN hubs to repay their millions of debt value

he values repaying the $70m+ debt he is contracted to repay as part founder of blockstream, more so then BITCOINS network value

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
chopstick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 992
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:13:09 PM
 #92

A very entertaining thread! My favourite part is when Alex.BTC takes the time to attempt a thorough, well-reasoned argument, then completely destroys his credibility with a ridiculous string of insults at the end.



The insults are well deserved. This debate has been going on for 2 Years. Now Gmax and pals are threatening to destroy bitcoin and hand over the network effect to Ethereum. They even threaten a POW change if they can't get what they want, this is the equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum because their mommy didn't buy them the candy they wanted.

Someone has to call Core out on their BS, and for being a bunch of babies with no leadership skills whatsoever.

Emotions are running high, and it's a good thing, because it will accelerate the process towards a rightful conclusion to this conflict.
DoomDumas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1001
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin forever !


View Profile WWW
March 26, 2017, 05:14:00 PM
 #93

THIS !!  
soon this BTU FUD spam will be history  Smiley)

OP is an uneducated baboon, similar to jonald_fyookball. These people have become so desperate that they've started spamming the board with threads and complaints.

Let me show you a nice picture:



Don't give me that "correlation != causation" crap, as the BTU folk has been often associating a price rise with an increase of BTU signalling (prior to this). Roll Eyes

traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:19:43 PM
 #94



because gmaxwell is NOT thinking about or caring about the more transactions = more utility value onchain
he is thinking with the less transactions = less utility value onchain = more utility value offchain = more economics value for himself to get greedy fee's by blockstream and DCG running LN hubs to repay their millions of debt value

he values repaying the $70m+ debt he is contracted to repay as part founder of blockstream, more so then BITCOINS network value
So just to be clear, you think it's a conspiracy?

I feel it might just be that the computer scientists who are ACTUALLY developing the system might know more than you about this system and thats why you are at odds with the direction the system is evolving towards.  Do you think its possible you have no idea what you are talking about and the experts that are experienced with the system do?

Admission of that might clear up all the FUD in your assertions.

Also do you at least claim to understand economics?  Just before I open up your argument, I just want to know if you would even claim to know what you are talking about.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1653



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:28:18 PM
 #95

gmaxwell and his team avoided community consensus by going soft.. pools didnt ask to be the only vote.. it was thrust upon them.

gmaxwell and his team scream drama cries that splitting is bad, purely to play the fake victim card

gmaxwell says that it can cause issues blah blah blah. trying to play the victim card. but its gmaxwell and his team with all the deadlines. PoW change nuclear options. and the overrule activation and split code even if there is no consensus

gmaxwell loves his zcash, monero and $$$ fiat salary

oh..
this little nugget
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:31:52 PM
 #96



The insults are well deserved. This debate has been going on for 2 Years. Now Gmax and pals are threatening to destroy bitcoin and hand over the network effect to Ethereum. They even threaten a POW change if they can't get what they want, this is the equivalent to a child throwing a temper tantrum because their mommy didn't buy them the candy they wanted.

Someone has to call Core out on their BS, and for being a bunch of babies with no leadership skills whatsoever.

Emotions are running high, and it's a good thing, because it will accelerate the process towards a rightful conclusion to this conflict.
This is a childish attitude.  And I've seen no core devs acting like this.  The vast majority seem incredibly professional and patient with the process.

Core is not supposed to have leadership, its supposed to be decentralized and you are clearly an enemy versus bitcoin for asserting it should have a leader and leadership.

Emotions running high is not a good thing, nor is accelerating the process, that is anti-reason and instable (ie not secure to suggest).

Do you have a scientifically founded argument or not?
corebob
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:33:08 PM
 #97

...LN...

Let them do it fairly and with free market dynamics, not unfair advantage of influence over
the core repo and intentionally stunting growth on the first layer, which is exactly what they've been doing.


The protocol should be neutral to a 2nd layer, and I expect competition between several second layer networks over fees.
Even better, low end users should be able to participate by running LN nodes, getting a cut of the fees.

That's what I expect from this, and that's why I support SegWit
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:40:26 PM
 #98

Segwit offers the fees relief every BU supporter is asking for.

It doesn't, stop lying, it was clearly explained by franky1 why it doesn't.
Core assumes attackers are going to spam LN instead of the main chain, are you telling me you actually believe in that?

Nonsense.

The whales want the fees to be too high on the main chain for you peons to use and they have their reason for that which you wouldn't understand, so they don't even bother to tell you.

But the fact is, you will not have any choice but to follow the decision of the whales.

So just keep crying in your milk, or perhaps consider another possible future option.

If you want to gain insight, read the following thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1837136.msg18339801#msg18339801

That alone tells me Core is either flat out lying or has absolutely no clue what they're doing.

The whales know what they are doing and why.

Like I said don't treat your users like they are idiots.

Idiots can't be treated as anything other than what they are. Again the above linked thread is available for those who want to learn.


Blockstream's hostile takeover attempt of Bitcoin is very much like a color revolution, the tactics used so far have been very eerily similar to what the CIA does when they target a country or a government for overthrow and replacement by a puppet dictatorship who will bow to US interests.

Except Bitcoin is totally different. And many people involved with bitcoin, aren't stupid. They see easily through this insanity.

Repeating what I wrote upthread (but which you ignored apparently), you are stupid.

Until you take the time to understand what is really going on, then you will remain willfully stupid.

I am laughing watch you guys fighting each other and personalizing the issue, when in fact the fate of this was decided years ago before Core even exist.

You guys are fighting over nothing.

Do you simply refuse to click the links I provided and understand this issue properly.

Or do you prefer to fight over irrelevant matters which have no bearing whatsoever to the issue at hand.

Come on guys, you are demonstrating how stupid and closed-minded you are. The Bitcoin whales are laughing at you.

Can't you all comprehend what is written at the links I provided  Huh
Oznog
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 64
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 26, 2017, 05:45:44 PM
 #99

Would you please stop obsessing over me?  It's creepy.

I am not your mommy.

You do not get to determine how I spend my time, you do not get to restrict what I say or believe.  I don't force anyone to do anything. You will you make me cow down and obey you through threatening me by lying to the public to try to raise a mob of idiots against me, and even if you do manage to get me killed you will not stop bitcoin, you will not convert it to the centralized coin you seem to so desperately want.

So give it a break.





Dear Greg (and other Core developers),

Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.

Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.

When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.

As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.

With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.

For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.

Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.

So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.

Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?

I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.

Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.

The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?

The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?

I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.

Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."

If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?

Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.

Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.

Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.

Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.

Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.

And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.

So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.

As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.

Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.

Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.

Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.

There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.

Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.

It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.

But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.

Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.

Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.

So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.

You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.

Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.

But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.

Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?

Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?

Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.

And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.

I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.

That's all.

Alex

I totally agree. Brilliant.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1653



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:52:40 PM
 #100

The protocol should be neutral to a 2nd layer, and I expect competition between several second layer networks over fees.
Even better, low end users should be able to participate by running LN nodes, getting a cut of the fees.

That's what I expect from this, and that's why I support SegWit

if your only supporting core with hopes of making an income running a LN node hoping to be a 'payment hopper'. i have to wake you up

even if it costs 1sat(its more and fixed so forget hopper competition) to make a payment and you core'bob' want a fee for instance

Alice< >'bob'< >Cindy< >Dave< >Eddie
if alice wants to pay Eddie.. alice needs to pay
'bob' 1sat,
Cindy 1 sat
Dave 1 sat
to get to Eddie.. costing alice 3sat(it will be more, but for simple demo im just saying 1sat each)

if alice wants to pay Dave.. alice needs to pay
'bob' 1sat,
Cindy 1 sat
to get to Dave costing alice 2sat(it will be more, but for simple demo im just saying 1sat each)

this will not happen.. instead..

             Bob          Cindy
              ^             ^
              v              v
alice < > blockstream/DCG < > Felicia
              ^             ^
              v              v
            Dave        Eddie


now alice can pay anyone for just 1 sat.. and the other people get nothing... yep thats right core'bob' you get nothing.
blockstream get the 1sat's per payment.

even funnier part is LN has fixed the fee at % of amount.(which actually limits how many transactions you can make offchain)
EG if 1%= 100 payments and literally your money is gone in mostly fee's

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 »
  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!