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

[kiklo]

I'm still asking for clarity on whether or not you think bitcoin is controlled by a conspiracy. The examples you are pointing out do not speak to the point that markets are to serve as our only objective basis for valuation.

What you are pointing out is what bitcoin is meant to address which is the negative effects that monopoly and regulation create (even though the claim is the regulation is meant to make the markets more fair).  Bitcoin has whales and early adopters and they will serve their own rational self interest.  This is what the system was built on and how it was intended to function.  To call that manipulation is not scientific its the will of the markets.  Giving it a negative connotation is your subjective viewpoint just like the news articles that gives sentiments and narration (zero hedge is known as a fringe cite for example).

Of Course BTC is controlled by a Conspiracy,

An increasing BTC Price Hurts Adoption as it prices it out of the Reach of many in Foreign countries where they have an extremely low exchange rate with the US or Europe.
For BTC Price to increase so dramatically within a year , it can only be manipulation by the Elite Few that have been stockpiling BTC at much lower prices,
since it's Utility Usage has been on the decline the entire time.

FYI: BTC is just History Repeating itself
Read the Following to Compare
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/diamond-de-beers-marketing-campaign#sm.001ja9o8j17uje94zbj2hil8a92hy

How It All Started

Diamonds haven't been rare stones since 1870, when huge diamond mines were discovered in South Africa. Soon after the discovery, the British financiers behind the South African mining efforts realized the diamond market would be saturated if they didn't do something about it. So in 1888, they set two audacious goals:

1) Monopolize diamond prices. They succeeded by creating De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. and taking full ownership and control of the world diamond trade. While they stockpiled diamonds and sold them strategically to control price, De Beers Chairman Sir Ernest Oppenheimer cultivated a network of wholesalers all over the world.

2) Stabilize the market. To succeed here, De Beers would have to figure out a way to control both supply and demand for diamonds worldwide. For this, they would need to find an ad agency.

When De Beers began looking for an ad agency, the global economy was suffering and Europe was under threat of war. Their challenge was to figure out which country or countries had the most potential to support a growing diamond market, and then to hire an agency to implement a marketing campaign in those countries. Because of Europe's preoccupation with the oncoming war, the U.S. was chosen -- even though the total number of diamonds in the U.S. had declined by nearly 50% since the end of World War I.

https://www.gemsociety.org/article/are-diamonds-really-rare/

MYTH: Diamonds are rare.
MYTH: Diamonds are the most valuable gem.
MYTH: Diamonds are precious.
MYTH: A person can make a lot of money selling diamonds.

Compared to BTC Myths
MYTH:  BTC is the Best Coin ,  (Techically the oldest and slowest and least # of transactions per second.)
MYTH:  BTC only goes up in Price.  (People that purchased in Nov 2013 have been in the hole , until Jan 2017, and barely broke even.)
MYTH:  BTC will make you Rich.  (Aside from early adopters , no regular guy has done well since 2013. Not enough to be Rich.)

Same Scam , just a different product , replace De Beers with China & Miners and Diamonds with BTC.  

 

[1713282575]

1713282575

[1713282575]

1713282575

[1713282575]

1713282575

[1713282575]

1713282575

[1713282575]

1713282575

[1713282575]

1713282575

[Alex.BTC]

https://i.imgsafe.org/8a71a2139b.png

They seem to have a task force specifically assigned to close block size increase pull requests.   So fast reaction.

Closed within 7 minutes, that is extremely fast for pull request standards, you can almost hear the alarm bells going off.

I've always found the name 'SegWit' too technical and too confusing to non developers. They really should just name the whole thing after the desperate Blockstream cut outs and call it FukWit instead.

This way people can get the gist of it immediately without going through the technical manual.

I welcome side chain developments, just don't do it at the cost of limiting the main chain and stop using dirty tactics.

[Lauda]

Should we take a little look in your own backyard? Zander & Jannsen caught lying:



Roger Ver lying & dishonesty:
https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/846142941441744897

-snip-
They seem to have a task force specifically assigned to close block size increase pull requests.   So fast reaction.

Any consensus changes can't be made on a whim. You should know that. I was about to comment on the stupidity of the pull request. Segwit is a pretty great change, supported by a supermajority of the people whom you may consider *experts* in this technology.

[traincarswreck]

Referencing market cap only gives you away as having no opinion of your own re the technology. Two years from now most successful coins will be Proof-of-Stake or some hybrid of PoW/PoS.

Successful in their own right perhaps, which is why I am a fan of projects like ethereum, but in the meantime there is no scientific basis or empirical evidence to suggest such projects are secure long term.  Quoting a future that hasn't happened is not a founded argument. The discussion is interesting but you can't move the markets with an assertion and the bitcoin network will not accept an unfounded proposal for significant change, the collective of checks and balances between all the different interests won't allow it-the collective is smarter than the irrational unfounded individual or any faction made up of such individuals (which is a point I make based on a well expressed argument given by Hayek which I have already partially cited/quoted).

[traincarswreck]

Of Course BTC is controlled by a Conspiracy,

An increasing BTC Price Hurts Adoption as it prices it out of the Reach of many in Foreign countries where they have an extremely low exchange rate with the US or Europe.

I'm only going to address this because the rest is an extension of your belief in such conspiracies while ignoring the basis for market theory and especially in regard to rational self interest.

What you have said here is that the price of bitcoin going up (and implied) in relation to respective domestic fiat hurts adoption.  But this is a very silly and incorrect understanding of the effects of bitcoin's rising value/price.  If the price is going up then it makes more sense for people of a national to exchange their fiat for bitcoin.  This is why countries like venezuela have a steadily increasing adoption rate, and why local bitcoin's has a growing user base.

It's nonsensical to imply that bitcoin's price prices out users. It doesn't make sense, you can always buy less bitcoin for the same price if it is rising, and you always benefit from it rising.

[kiklo]

Of Course BTC is controlled by a Conspiracy,

An increasing BTC Price Hurts Adoption as it prices it out of the Reach of many in Foreign countries where they have an extremely low exchange rate with the US or Europe.

I'm only going to address this because the rest is an extension of your belief in such conspiracies while ignoring the basis for market theory and especially in regard to rational self interest.

What you have said here is that the price of bitcoin going up (and implied) in relation to respective domestic fiat hurts adoption.  But this is a very silly and incorrect understanding of the effects of bitcoin's rising value/price.  If the price is going up then it makes more sense for people of a national to exchange their fiat for bitcoin.  This is why countries like venezuela have a steadily increasing adoption rate, and why local bitcoin's has a growing user base.

It's nonsensical to imply that bitcoin's price prices out users. It doesn't make sense, you can always buy less bitcoin for the same price if it is rising, and you always benefit from it rising.

Something else you should research : Priced Out of the Market
The higher BTC price gets, the less people that will pay it transaction fees, not everyone is a US or European Citizen.
Once BTC gets over $1.60 for transaction fees and it takes a week to process it , it is even cheaper & faster in the US to send a money order by USPS.  
(Also No Worries about Price Fluctuations with a Money order, BTC could decrease by $200 in a week.)
Odds are casual users will switch to LTC , ETH, or Doge way before that happens.
Crypto transaction have to be Fast , to avoid market fluctuations that can destroy value, before it is even received.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/priced-out.asp

DEFINITION of 'Priced Out'

The state of being unable to invest in a particular market or purchase a particular product or service. When someone is priced out of a market, their choices are to simply remain out of the market, to wait for the market to become more affordable, to improve their own financial situation to the point where they can afford to buy, or, if possible, to consider a different market. For example, someone who was priced out of the luxury car market could look at economy cars instead.
BREAKING DOWN 'Priced Out'

"Priced out" is commonly used to refer to the real estate market. For example, residents of cities with extremely high average home prices, such as Newport Beach, Calif., would be said to be priced out of the market if they could not afford even an entry-level home. The options available to someone who is priced out of a real estate market would include buying in a different area, waiting for the supply of housing to increase enough to lower housing prices or getting a higher-paying job that would allow them to afford a property.

 

[traincarswreck]

Something else you should research : Priced Out of the Market
The higher BTC price gets, the less people that will pay it transaction fees, not everyone is a US or European Citizen.
Once BTC gets over $1.60 for transaction fees and it takes a week to process it , it is even cheaper & faster in the US to send a money order by USPS. 
Odds are casual users will switch to LTC , ETH, or Doge way before that happens.

The only reason that the fees can be so high is if the network utility is valued high enough to support such use.  So you can't simultaneously say bitcoin will become irrelevant AND the fees will be high.  You would be, again, refuting your own argument. It COULD be true though that many users that use bitcoin for cheap transactions today, would use other currencies (or 2nd layers solutions) for such transactions in the future.  But this doesn't speak to the value of the system, because, and like I quoted Szabo and Finney explaining, bitcoin would be very valuable as a high powered settlement layer, and then for that function the higher fees would be completely acceptable.

The higher fees come from transactions that are sending large value.  You can't claim that the system will be irrelevant when bigger and more wealth players are using it. Its just not a system for the average citizen and it was never meant to be. 

But it is still being adopted because its value is increasing in relation to domestic fiat, which is exactly what fuels adoption, not transaction capacity, and not the cheapness to transact otherwise litecoin etc. would have a billion+ dollar market cap.

[Quickseller]

The reason why the price is going down is because we don't like the BU threat that will give the power over the blocksize to just 5 mining pool operators (or effectively 1 ASIC manufacturer.) I like bitcoin for it's decentralization properties, not because I trust Jihan Wu so much. I will never accept the idiotic idea called "emergent consensus."

Big blocks are great. I definitely want to see safely planned blocksize increase after Segwit. And if it won't be merged in the beginning in Bitcoin Core, I will just support another client, but emergent consensus is still a joke and Segwit is still the obvious way forward.

Others have said this before, and I think it is worth saying again. The support that BU is getting is not because the ideas behind BU are so great, it is because of the strong opposition to Core and SW.

I don't believe there are any SW features that are *needed* today/now, but are rather features that might be nice to have in the future. Larger blocks on the other hand is something that Bitcoin has needed for years now. I don't see a reason why SW should get implemented prior to larger blocks, especially after what happened with the HK agreement.

Even if you don't like some Core developers, it should not be a reason to support a broken risky concept "emergent consensus" and to reject Segwit without any proper technical arguments.

I don't think there is necessarily a dislike of certain Core devs, I think it is more a dislike of Core as a whole, likely including their scaling roadmap.

I think the appeal behind EC is that it has shown to be very difficult to raise the max block size, even when there has been a reasonable argument (you may not agree with it) that the block size needs to be immidiately raised for the past two years, and EC removes the vast majority of the friction of raising the max block size in the future. I don't personally like EC very much, however I think it is better than the status quo -- I would personally like to see something along the lines of BIP 101, and if the max block size in BIP 101 turns out to be too fast, the max block size can effectively be reduced via soft forks.

In regards to SW, I believe I have read that it is something like 50,000 lines of code, which implies it is horribly complex (I am not 100% sure on this stat, although this fact is given little weight in my opinion), and it leads to things that will change the security model of Bitcoin. As it stands today, the miners receive ~all of the transaction fees, which is what gives them incentives to keep the network secure. By removing revenue from the miners, you are lowering the EV of a $1 investment in mining equipment to use to secure the network, and increasing the EV of a $1 investment in mining equipment to be used to harm the network (currently negative).

Some people have said that on-chain transaction will happen anyway, and happen today, for example when someone with a Coinbase account sends money to someone else's Coinbase account. This is true, however there is significant friction by doing this because of the counterparty risk, and because of the lack of privacy that this entails. SW (via LN) will reduce this friction by nearly eliminating the counterparty risk (there are still very real ways that a party acting maliciously could attempt to steal your money, and often be successful).

Segwit will give us effectively 2.1 MB blocks (if used.) If "Roger Ver" and "Jihan Wu" really cared about "more transactions", they could have Segwit activated in just a few weeks. Any blocksize increase by HF will take much longer than that - especially if you want to have a non-contentious HF (eg no blockchain split.) This should be enough reason to activate Segwit ASAP even if someone hates "Core" so much. We can just focus on a good dynamic blocksize increase with safe thresholds etc after that.

According to coin.dance (I have some concerns about their reporting, but they will do for now), 28% of companies are not ready for SW, and an additional 5% are outright against it. Some who are "not ready" are probably against SW, but just don't want to say because they don't want to get involved in political disputes. As a result of this, I would consider SW to be a contentious fork, even if you want to sell it as a soft fork, which I disagree with (I actually have been recently unable to find any references to "soft fork" and "hard from" from days prior to Bitcoin, so I believe these terms, and definitions were made up by someone/some group within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and my understanding as to what a "soft fork" is has changed over the past couple of years, eg. I would give you a different definition of a "soft fork" in 2014, than what I would say that the devs consider a "soft fork" today, I am not sure if this is because my understanding of Bitcoin has improved, or if the devs have evolved the definition of "soft fork" over time).  

At this point, I don't think that a contentious fork is avoidable when it comes to scaling solutions, at least not for the first step. I would be very surprised if anything that resembles consensus is reached for a scaling solution, especially the unrealistic high bar that many core devs, and other prominent players have said is necessary.

In my opinion second layers like the Lightning Network are very cool too and will be much easier with Segwit too. Buying coffee was never really feasible with bitcoin, not because of the fees, but because of the slow blocks (10 min avg, but frequently 1h.) LN will not just make micro-transactions very cheap, but also allows them to be instant. Of course it would still take years before we can really use this, but if we could at least test it on mainnet already - progress will probably go even quicker. Note that there are already 6 different LN implementations: Amiko-Pay, Eclair (ACINQ), lightningd (Blockstream), lit (MIT Digital Currency Initiative), lnd(Lightning Co), Thunder (Blockchain.info) - some of them work already on testnet. While I still have many skeptical questions about LN, it does seem nice for small (low-value) payments.

I stated my primary concerns about SW (and in turn LN) above.

In 2014, it was generally safe to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction, as the rules to determine if a transaction would confirm were fairly clear, and would not change (for the most part) from block to block, so you could look at the majority of unconfirmed transactions that you receive and say that it will either confirm within a few blocks, or that it will not confirm at all, and would usually be correct. There were multiple gambling sites that would display the result of an on-chain bet prior to the transaction/bet being confirmed, and the losses due to double spends were low enough so that they continued offering this service. Today, the criteria of if a transaction will be confirmed within the next few blocks changes from block to block and will mostly depend on recent transaction volume and what is in the mempool, however the advent of RBF further complicates this.

Accepting a 0/unconfirmed transaction (assuming there is sufficient block space) is not all that different from accepting a check or a credit card payment, as the risks are very similar. Some people have claimed that transaction fees will move towards zero if the max block size is too large, however this can be resolved by making transactions that include a fee of under x BTC/byte outright invalid, and in order to account that an acceptable fee rate might change over time, this can be done via a series of soft forks (eg have a soft fork that says that any transaction confirmed in blocks 500,000 through 550,000 that contain a tx fee of under 100 sat/byte are invalid, then around block 500,000 a new soft fork could be implemented that says any transaction confirmed in blocks 550,001 through 600,000 that contain a tx fee of under 98 sat/byte are invalid, and so on). If this was implemented, then the block size could be set so that the mempool is effectively cleared when each block is found.

[kiklo]

Something else you should research : Priced Out of the Market
The higher BTC price gets, the less people that will pay it transaction fees, not everyone is a US or European Citizen.
Once BTC gets over $1.60 for transaction fees and it takes a week to process it , it is even cheaper & faster in the US to send a money order by USPS. 
Odds are casual users will switch to LTC , ETH, or Doge way before that happens.

The only reason that the fees can be so high is if the network utility is valued high enough to support such use.  So you can't simultaneously say bitcoin will become irrelevant AND the fees will be high.  You would be, again, refuting your own argument. It COULD be true though that many users that use bitcoin for cheap transactions today, would use other currencies (or 2nd layers solutions) for such transactions in the future.  But this doesn't speak to the value of the system, because, and like I quoted Szabo and Finney explaining, bitcoin would be very valuable as a high powered settlement layer, and then for that function the higher fees would be completely acceptable.

The higher fees come from transactions that are sending large value.  You can't claim that the system will be irrelevant when bigger and more wealth players are using it. Its just not a system for the average citizen and it was never meant to be. 

But it is still being adopted because its value is increasing in relation to domestic fiat, which is exactly what fuels adoption, not transaction capacity, and not the cheapness to transact otherwise litecoin etc. would have a billion+ dollar market cap.

The Artificial Limit of 1MB blocksize is causing an artificial limit of transaction space , this causes the increased fee system and transaction delays.
BTC is too Young of a system to not increase OnChain Transaction capacity,
Offchain systems should happen later , BTC just does not have the market saturation to support these self imposed limitations out of greed.
And this will cause an exodus to cheaper faster Alts, which once someone gets used to a faster cheaper version, they won't go back unless BTC speeds up and cheapens up their fees.

Where are you seeing increased adoption, business have been dropping BTC usage not expanding it.
Users are more content to hold and hope the price goes up , than spend it on a daily basis.
BTC is a speculation, it has failed to be adopted as a currency and unless things change quickly , it is losing that window forever.

 

[kiklo]

I stated my primary concerns about SW (and in turn LN) above.

In 2014, it was generally safe to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction, as the rules to determine if a transaction would confirm were fairly clear, and would not change (for the most part) from block to block, so you could look at the majority of unconfirmed transactions that you receive and say that it will either confirm within a few blocks, or that it will not confirm at all, and would usually be correct. There were multiple gambling sites that would display the result of an on-chain bet prior to the transaction/bet being confirmed, and the losses due to double spends were low enough so that they continued offering this service. Today, the criteria of if a transaction will be confirmed within the next few blocks changes from block to block and will mostly depend on recent transaction volume and what is in the mempool, however the advent of RBF further complicates this.

Accepting a 0/unconfirmed transaction (assuming there is sufficient block space) is not all that different from accepting a check or a credit card payment, as the risks are very similar. Some people have claimed that transaction fees will move towards zero if the max block size is too large, however this can be resolved by making transactions that include a fee of under x BTC/byte outright invalid, and in order to account that an acceptable fee rate might change over time, this can be done via a series of soft forks (eg have a soft fork that says that any transaction confirmed in blocks 500,000 through 550,000 that contain a tx fee of under 100 sat/byte are invalid, then around block 500,000 a new soft fork could be implemented that says any transaction confirmed in blocks 550,001 through 600,000 that contain a tx fee of under 98 sat/byte are invalid, and so on). If this was implemented, then the block size could be set so that the mempool is effectively cleared when each block is found.

It has never been safe to accept Zero Confirmations, considering BTC has on average 3 orphan block per day.
And to Double spend all I have to do is send out the 1st transaction with zero fees to a retail vendor, and then transfer all of my BTC to another address with a high transaction fee.

Sorry BTC requires 3 confirmations to be safe , anything else is just asking to be robbed.

 

[Quickseller]

Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.

If we're talking about increasing block size from 4MB to 8MB, there maybe some room for debate.

But nothing can justify not going form 1MB to 2MB, there is a real backlog and the safety limit is above 4MB.

Blockstream is clearly holding the bitcoin code base hostage.

Here is another pull request for block size increase, closed immediately without any comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014

In the first issue that you cited, sipa said that the core maintainers do not, and do not want to decide what the network's rules are. By this logic, they would be unable to merge any kind of forks into the Bitcoin Core code at all, including soft forks. Additionally, they seem to be threatening to HF a change in the PoW if the miners do not accept SW, which implies they are both able to change the network's rules in regards to the PoW, and are saying that SW is something that needs to be part of the network's rules.

[traincarswreck]

The Artificial Limit of 1MB blocksize is causing an artificial limit of transaction space , this causes the increased fee system and transaction delays.
BTC is too Young of a system to not increase OnChain Transaction capacity,
Offchain systems should happen later , BTC just does not have the market saturation to support these self imposed limitations out of greed.
And this will cause an exodus to cheaper faster Alts, which once someone gets used to a faster cheaper version, they won't go back unless BTC speeds up and cheapens up their fees.

Where are you seeing increased adoption, business have been dropping BTC usage not expanding it.


 

Saying the limit is artificial is semantic and subjective at best.  The entire set of concensus rules and all of the parameters are "artificial".  There is nothing scientific or founded in economics to call a certain parameter that you don't like "artificial".  You are implying it is a negative thing but not giving any founded reasoning as to why it is so.

You have no basis or metric for determining whether bitcoin is too young to not increase its capacity and it is therefore only your individual subjective opinion and the opinion of other misinformed persons.

The exodus you speak of is FUD and not a falsifiable conjecture and therefore admittedly not rooted in a scientifically based argument.  You speak of an undefined future only, which is your only weapon in the debate.

Many business solutions are being created for bitcoin but bitcoin is not being adopted as a payment method which is not a negative thing like you imply.  Bitcoin as a store of wealth serves a great purpose in this world and businesses and citizens using it to transact are not needed whatsoever for this phenomenon to unfold.

Users are more content to hold and hope the price goes up , than spend it on a daily basis.
BTC is a speculation, it has failed to be adopted as a currency and unless things change quickly , it is losing that window forever.

Of course they are.  Because no one wants to spend a money that is increasing in value versus their other options.  And yes bitcoin will lose its option to be scaled in regard to transaction capacity but only because its value rises to the point that meta players are using it for large value settlement/transactions.  This means the network will be worth trillions of usd or more, and yes casual users today will stop using it primarily as a payment system.  

But it will still be p2p because a metaplayer/bank (peer1) will be able to send it to another metaplayer/bank (peer2)

[traincarswreck]

In the first issue that you cited, sipa said that the core maintainers do not, and do not want to decide what the network's rules are. By this logic, they would be unable to merge any kind of forks into the Bitcoin Core code at all, including soft forks. Additionally, they seem to be threatening to HF a change in the PoW if the miners do not accept SW, which implies they are both able to change the network's rules in regards to the PoW, and are saying that SW is something that needs to be part of the network's rules.

Are you honestly implying core has a set of magic rings that changes the consensus rules of the network by touching them together?

The network has to accept them.

Core can't unilaterally do anything meaningful but accept and reject proposals to the network/system.

[Quickseller]

I stated my primary concerns about SW (and in turn LN) above.

In 2014, it was generally safe to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction, as the rules to determine if a transaction would confirm were fairly clear, and would not change (for the most part) from block to block, so you could look at the majority of unconfirmed transactions that you receive and say that it will either confirm within a few blocks, or that it will not confirm at all, and would usually be correct. There were multiple gambling sites that would display the result of an on-chain bet prior to the transaction/bet being confirmed, and the losses due to double spends were low enough so that they continued offering this service. Today, the criteria of if a transaction will be confirmed within the next few blocks changes from block to block and will mostly depend on recent transaction volume and what is in the mempool, however the advent of RBF further complicates this.

Accepting a 0/unconfirmed transaction (assuming there is sufficient block space) is not all that different from accepting a check or a credit card payment, as the risks are very similar. Some people have claimed that transaction fees will move towards zero if the max block size is too large, however this can be resolved by making transactions that include a fee of under x BTC/byte outright invalid, and in order to account that an acceptable fee rate might change over time, this can be done via a series of soft forks (eg have a soft fork that says that any transaction confirmed in blocks 500,000 through 550,000 that contain a tx fee of under 100 sat/byte are invalid, then around block 500,000 a new soft fork could be implemented that says any transaction confirmed in blocks 550,001 through 600,000 that contain a tx fee of under 98 sat/byte are invalid, and so on). If this was implemented, then the block size could be set so that the mempool is effectively cleared when each block is found.

It has never been safe to accept Zero Confirmations, considering BTC has on average 3 orphan block per day.
And to Double spend all I have to do is send out the 1st transaction with zero fees to a retail vendor, and then transfer all of my BTC to another address with a high transaction fee.

Sorry BTC requires 3 confirmations to be safe , anything else is just asking to be robbed.

 

If both miners are acting rationally, if two blocks are found at an equal height (eg there is a block race that will result in one block getting orphaned), then both blocks should include approximately the same transactions, the exception being if one miner was made aware of certain fee paying transactions prior to finding the block (or if the transactions confirmed in a block do not empty the mempool, however if blocks are large enough, this would not be an issue), so an orphaned block should generally not be a problem.

In 2014, it was not trivial to double spend even most 0 fee transactions, and merchants could impose filters to ensure they do not accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction that contains an insufficient fee. By suggestion to make transactions that contain too little of a fee invalid would also solve this issue. Today it is very unsafe to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction because of the fee market and RBF.

[Quickseller]

In the first issue that you cited, sipa said that the core maintainers do not, and do not want to decide what the network's rules are. By this logic, they would be unable to merge any kind of forks into the Bitcoin Core code at all, including soft forks. Additionally, they seem to be threatening to HF a change in the PoW if the miners do not accept SW, which implies they are both able to change the network's rules in regards to the PoW, and are saying that SW is something that needs to be part of the network's rules.

Are you honestly implying core has a set of magic rings that changes the consensus rules of the network by touching them together?

The network has to accept them.

Core can't unilaterally do anything meaningful but accept and reject proposals to the network/system.

Core has significant influence, a big part of this is because what is merged into the code by Core is advertised on the same website that the Bitcoin whitepaper was originally hosted on, and in the forums that satoshi posted in.

[traincarswreck]

Core has significant influence, a big part of this is because what is merged into the code by Core is advertised on the same website that the Bitcoin whitepaper was originally hosted on, and in the forums that satoshi posted in.

It is quite different to point this out than to imply that Core has control of bitcoin and ability to unilaterally decided its fate.  What you are pointing out is effectively part of a check an balance versus dramatic in unfavorable change comparable to the US government system. It doesn't allow Core to take the whole system hostage any more than the different roles exchanges, miners, users etc have.

Each group has some ability to veto change, and pointing to only one such group as having such power is to either not understand the system or to speak disingenuously about it.

Not to mention core is a collective of different individuals contributing to an open source project.

[kiklo]

Saying the limit is artificial is semantic and subjective at best.  The entire set of concensus rules and all of the parameters are "artificial".  There is nothing scientific or founded in economics to call a certain parameter that you don't like "artificial".  You are implying it is a negative thing but not giving any founded reasoning as to why it is so.

You have no basis or metric for determining whether bitcoin is too young to not increase its capacity and it is therefore only your individual subjective opinion and the opinion of other misinformed persons.

The exodus you speak of is FUD and not a falsifiable conjecture and therefore admittedly not rooted in a scientifically based argument.  You speak of an undefined future only, which is your only weapon in the debate.

Many business solutions are being created for bitcoin but bitcoin is not being adopted as a payment method which is not a negative thing like you imply.  Bitcoin as a store of wealth serves a great purpose in this world and businesses and citizens using it to transact are not needed whatsoever for this phenomenon to unfold.

The Basis for determination BTC is too young, is simple,
Product Recognition , The Majority of people still don't even know what it is , much less how to use it.

For someone that claims to understand science, you seem to be failing in math.
If I can use a product that is faster and cheaper and provides me with a better service, then that is the coin I would use.
Wasting Fiat on a product that is weaker than the competition , is really foolish.
Only someone believing the Hype would continue using a slower more expensive coin, that is wasting your time and money.
You are acting like BTC is a religious choice not an economic one.  
For you it may be a religion , for everyone else it is merely a product or service that has not kept up with the competition.

What makes you think Meta Players like to waste money, the bean counters usually pay attention to fractions of a penny, and the meta players use bean counters.  

 

[Lauda]

In regards to SW, I believe I have read that it is something like 50,000 lines of code, which implies it is horribly complex (I am not 100% sure on this stat, although this fact is given little weight in my opinion), and it leads to things that will change the security model of Bitcoin. As it stands today, the miners receive ~all of the transaction fees, which is what gives them incentives to keep the network secure. By removing revenue from the miners, you are lowering the EV of a $1 investment in mining equipment to use to secure the network, and increasing the EV of a $1 investment in mining equipment to be used to harm the network (currently negative).

This is completely wrong. Segwit does not have 50k lines of code. You are most likely referring to the comparison of Core and BU that was on reddit a few months back. Furthermore, Segwit removes no fees from miners. The claim that LN will steal mining fees is also a huge slippery slope.
I can check the numbers and come back here.

[traincarswreck]

The Basis for determination BTC is too young, is simple,
Product Recognition , The Majority of people still don't even know what it is , much less how to use it.

For someone that claims to understand science, you seem to be failing in math.
If I can use a product that is faster and cheaper and provides me with a better service, then that is the coin I would use.
Wasting Fiat on a product that is weaker than the competition , is really foolish.
Only someone believing the Hype would continue using a slower more expensive coin, that is wasting your time and money.
You are acting like BTC is a religious choice not an economic one.  
For you it may be a religion , for everyone else it is merely a product or service that has not kept up with the competition.

What makes you think Meta Players like to waste money, the bean counters usually pay attention to fractions of a penny, and the meta players use bean counters.  

 

You are conflating the usefulness of transacting with money with the usefulness of a store of value.  That people will leave bitcoin because it is not useful for the former does not imply bitcoin is not useful for the latter.

Metaplayers waste nothing by using bitcoin, it will always be by far the cheapest more secure/apolitical way to send large amounts of value. Other options will never be able to beat this.

[kiklo]

You are conflating the usefulness of transacting with money with the usefulness of a store of value.  The people will leave bitcoin because it is not useful for the former does not imply bitcoin is not useful for the latter.

Metaplayers waste nothing by using bitcoin, it will always be by far the cheapest more secure/apolitical way to send large amounts of value. Other options will never be able to beat this.

LOL,  

You don't know that , and you definitely can't use the scientific method to prove it.  

You hold BTC as a religion icon that can not fail,

It is an economic product , it has no magic to resist the real market forces when they appear.

LTC & ETH are both already cheaper to send, especially now that coinbase is no longer paying everyone's transaction fees for them.

If you want a religion , go pick one with some values besides endless selfish greed, BTC is a False Prophet and it is beginning its decline,
due to economic forces nothing else.