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

[traincarswreck]

Satoshi disappeared before he could layout more ground works, now the vultures are circling.

Do you think now that you made this thread touting conspiracy and crying to maxwell that core will magically bend to YOUR wishes?

[jonald_fyookball]

Alex, of course we know that mAXAwell is acting willfully here.  It is pretty sad.

Man I didn't know so many people felt the same way.
 

A part of me wants to be nice and say: Give Greg the benefit of the doubt -- maybe he really truly believes in his heart of hearts that he's acting in the best interest of Bitcoin.

But the fact of the matter is that Greg really has no choice to but follow through on his promises to his investors and continue with his plan of turning Bitcoin into a settlement network.  
 
So, nothing personal  (at least from me)... but we see exactly what you are doing, we oppose it, and we will not be silenced.
    

[traincarswreck]

A part of me wants to be nice and say: Give Greg the benefit of the doubt -- maybe he really truly believes in his heart of hearts that he's acting in the best interest of Bitcoin.

But the fact of the matter is that Greg really has no choice to but follow through on his promises to his investors and continue with his plan of turning Bitcoin into a settlement network.  
 
So, nothing personal  (at least from me)... but we see exactly what you are doing, we oppose it, and we will not be silenced.
    

But your view on how things should be isn't scientifically based, you are just a kid posting on a forum about something you aren't actually involved in developing and disagreeing with the ACTIVE experts in the field.

[iamnotback]

Nick Szabo admits that LN is not socially scalable. @traincarswreck is lying when he drops Szabo's name.

[jonald_fyookball]

Nick Szabo admits that LN is not socially scalable. @traincarswreck is lying when he drops Szabo's name.

Thanks.

Can you quote the exact part where he says this?  I couldn't find it. 

[iamnotback]

Nick Szabo admits that LN is not socially scalable. @traincarswreck is lying when he drops Szabo's name.

Thanks.

Can you quote the exact part where he says this?  I couldn't find it.  

He implied it by the context and what LN is (and that LN is not trustless):

All of the following are very similar in requiring an securely identified (distinguishable and countable) group of servers rather than the arbitrary anonymous membership of miners in public blockchains. In other words, they require some other, usually far less socially scalable, solution to the Sybil (sockpuppet) attack problem:

...

We need more socially scalable ways to securely count nodes, or to put it another way to with as much robustness against corruption as possible, assess contributions to securing the integrity of a blockchain. That is what proof-of-work and broadcast-replication are about: greatly sacrificing computational scalability in order to improve social scalability.

Nick got it. Lightning Networks isn't socially scalable.

[Killerpotleaf]

We need more socially scalable ways to securely count nodes, or to put it another way to with as much robustness against corruption as possible, assess contributions to securing the integrity of a blockchain. That is what proof-of-work and broadcast-replication are about: greatly sacrificing computational scalability in order to improve social scalability.

somehow i think this isn't exactly " socially scalable " but,
I would argue that increasing node requirements will help in that regard. much like increased difficulty means a 51% is more costly. higher node requirements means sybil attack becomes more expensive, which is good...

[iamnotback]

We need more socially scalable ways to securely count nodes, or to put it another way to with as much robustness against corruption as possible, assess contributions to securing the integrity of a blockchain. That is what proof-of-work and broadcast-replication are about: greatly sacrificing computational scalability in order to improve social scalability.

somehow i think this isn't exactly " socially scalable " but,
I would argue that increasing node requirements will help in that regard. much like increased difficulty means a 51% is more costly. higher node requirements means sybil attack becomes more expensive, which is good...

Don't attribute that quote to me. Nick Szabo wrote that. Learn how to use a forum properly please.

You don't even understand what he means by social scalability. It is about trust minimization and how that enables greater economies of exchange and matching.

[robbyishere]

says falling shows 1 minute chart 

Actually, it's the 1 month chart

[traincarswreck]

Nick Szabo admits that LN is not socially scalable. @traincarswreck is lying when he drops Szabo's name.

Thanks.

Can you quote the exact part where he says this?  I couldn't find it.  

Szabo didn't say anything of the sort.

Nick Szabo admits that LN is not socially scalable. @traincarswreck is lying when he drops Szabo's name.

I wasn't lying, Szabo confirmed it when HE dropped MY name today and 'tipped his hat to me' for bringing finney's quote to his attention so he could tweet it:



Both of them very clearly support bitcoin as a settlement system, micro-payments as 2nd layer solutions, and bitcoin as the basis for new optimized fractional reserve banking system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211+


Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

@iamnotback It's not possible for someone to be proved so wrong as I have now proved you to be.
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/846492284036145152

You've called me a liar and I have backed every claim I have made.

[traincarswreck]

You don't even understand what he means by social scalability. It is about trust minimization and how that enables greater economies of exchange and matching.

You didn't understand a thing in the article, I'm not convinced you read it, and you have come to the opposite conclusion that he did in regard to 2nd layer solutions and trading security for availability and efficiency:

Reverse-engineering our highly evolved traditional institutions, and even reviving in new form some old ones, will usually work better than designing from scratch, than grand planning and game theory. One important strategy for doing so was demonstrated by Satoshi – sacrifice computational efficiency and scalability

http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

^^^Hint: if you read the conclusions of good essays first you will get a good understanding of what you are reading altogether.

@iamnotback How does it feel to argue with someone that knows what they are talking about?

[iamnotback]

You can read this the way you want, but I see Nick essentially say that the only thing you can hope for bitcoin

@traincarswreck has very poor reading comprehension. He even edited my text and removed words from what he quoted. I really would prefer if you didn't quote him, because I have no interest in reading his nonsense. The guy has very poor cognitive skills.

Indeed Szabo is saying that we need the most trustless systems we can get and that for the large value settlement we should maximize the security but even Szabo admitted that Bitcoin had sacrificed the absolute mathematical security of insuring that every client had received a copy of each block and the Bitcoin instead chose a probabilistic propagation. As well even the finality of the Bitcoin is only probabilistic and not absolutely secure.

And Szabo is saying that for smaller valued transactions should use a lighter security with more efficiency, but he points out that systems which are not trustless (such as LN by implication) are not ideal for social scalability. He would of course like something more trustless than LN, but he doesn't know any better way to do it.

I guess I have to state all this because retards such as @traincarswreck are incapable of comprehending the issues unless they are spelled out.

[traincarswreck]

You can read this the way you want, but I see Nick essentially say that the only thing you can hope for bitcoin

@traincarswreck has very poor reading comprehension. He even edited my text and removed words from what he quoted. I really would prefer if you didn't quote him, because I have no interest in reading his nonsense. The guy has very poor cognitive skills.

Indeed Szabo is saying that we need the most trustless systems we can get and that for the large value settlement we should maximize the security but even Szabo admitted that Bitcoin had sacrificed the absolute mathematical security of insuring that every client had received a copy of each block and the Bitcoin instead chose a probabilistic propagation. As well even the finality of the Bitcoin is only probabilistic and not absolutely secure.

And Szabo is saying that for smaller valued transactions should use a lighter security with more efficiency, but he points out that systems which are not trustless (such as LN by implication) are not ideal for social scalability. He would of course like something more trustless than LN, but he doesn't know any better way to do it.

I guess I have to state all this because retards such as @traincarswreck are incapable of comprehending the issues unless they are spelled out.

Thanks.

Can you quote the exact part where he says this?  I couldn't find it.  

Can you see it now?  I underlined it.

[freedomno1]

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

The end of the current version may be approaching but the transition will birth something new.
Either way I wouldn't kill Bitcoin but it is a tough time for it and hedging is smart.
But I look forward to even more $$$ in the next few years ^^.

[spartacusrex]

A part of me wants to be nice and say: Give Greg the benefit of the doubt -- maybe he really truly believes in his heart of hearts that he's acting in the best interest of Bitcoin.    

honestly - how can you even question this..!? He does. You're just being a twat.

But the fact of the matter is that Greg really has no choice to but follow through on his promises to his investors and continue with his plan of turning Bitcoin into a settlement network.  

Wrong.

So, nothing personal  (at least from me)... but we see exactly what you are doing, we oppose it, and we will not be silenced.

LOL.. you've MADE it personal. You see nothing except what you want to see.

.....

CORE want more txns. Stop saying they don't. They just disagree with the ridiculous notion that it can be achieved ON CHAIN. As do most of us. (And I'm talking about serious LARGE amount of txns )

What happens when your BU blocks are full.. ? Increase block size ? Because there WILL BE NO END TO THAT. They will always fill up. This fantasy about a Market determining the block size is 'idiotic'. You'll just stress the network, and be right back here (having wiped out MOST user nodes) in 6 months time. Then EITHER you increase  - or you tell all the other idiots who bought into this shit show, that block size increases weren't the way to go, and we need a secondary layer. DUH..

CORE are not your enemy. Ignorance and Fear are.

[iamnotback]

I hope you guys understand there is something much bigger than you realize going on here.

Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice?

Some ground rules have to be explained so that readers can make sense of this, so they can clearly discern who is the idiot with inkblot comprehension skills.

1. Nash's theory of Ideal Money has as its very foundation, the absolute requirement that the standard money (aka the high valued settlement money) must be absolutely honest, impartial, and have a predictable schedule of debasement. If this requirement is not met, then the entire theory crumbles to sand, because for example as Nash explained, the system of national currencies we have now is non-informational because there is no honest, predictable standard value which can enable the information of the free market to anneal. In other words, a totally relative system is a circle jerk of the blind leading the blind (bad money compared against bad money). But we know already from our upthread analysis of Bitcoin that it is completely controlled by the whales, and thus there is no reason to believe it will forever remain honest. Rothschild controls Bitcoin and when he is ready in future when the entire world is dependent on this standard money, then he can start to do dishonest things with it and bring the world to Revelation with all the wealth of the world concentrated on the hill in Jerusalem, as predicted in the Bible. Everything is proceeding exactly as predicted, so it is very easy for me to discern what is happening.

2. The good currencies are destined to wipe out the bad currencies over time as the public and the free markets anneal to the survival-of-the-fittest wherein those systems which had employed the good money as their unit-of-account will have prospered. But this means a lot of pain in the interim time while old systems fight against the good money and there booms and busts in bad money regimes. The private banking in Bitcoin off chain LN will be beholden to the (regulations, central banks, etc) regions wherein they do business, unlike the Bitcoin on chain money which will be global money immune to regulation because of the nature of its regulation being the secure/immutable protocol of the blockchain (and this is a key point!). This is entirely my point that unleashing unregulated fractional reserve banking on off chain Bitcoin transactions denominated in BTC (at par) globally would cause extreme distress just as the Greece borrowing in Euros when their industrial productivity is not as high as Germany has bankrupted Greece. This is the 10 Kings stage of regional currencies as predicted in Revelation in the Bible. This is the pain and chaos that precedes the final stage when the entire world submits to a single world currency and the 666 mark on everyone's forehead, as mentioned for item #1 above.


Bitcoin is the NWO coin. It was created by Rothschild and he controls it behind the scenes.

Now my point is that during the 10 Kings stage, these regional currencies (e.g. the Yuan for the Asian Union) and any private banking "BTC" derivative notes issued within those regimes, will not be a global unit, because they will have failures which are independent of each other (because they are not on chain protocol enforced money). Thus my point is that during that period, the knowledge age economy which is already globalized and to a large extent ignores and is immune to regional regulation, will desire a unit-of-account which is global and protocol enforced on chain. I intend to provide this unit with my project and our money will diverge from Bitcoin's universe. We will bifurcate away from Bitcoin's old world economy which is trying to convert the legacy political and financial systems of the world to the Ideal Money. Instead we will go directly to Ideal Money enforced on chain and ours will be even better than Bitcoin because it will be deflationary instead of only 0% inflation.

And we will kick ass. Those who want to suffer and moan in pain will go with the banksters and their Bitcoin lie. It is a lie because of that I wrote in #1.

And I don't care what that idiot writes, because it should be now very clear he is an idiot who deserves his appointment with his future pain and suffering.

In the Bible it says that the Beast is wounded. I am telling you I think our work is what wounds the Beast.

[franky1]

This poster still hasn't given a specific explanation to the claims that the events in the 1800's

now trainwreck is just rambling

WTF does a theory in the 1800's have to do with bitcoin.. bitcoin is new revolutionary economics
yet trainwreck is rambling how bitcoin should be following the old economics path.

trainwreck needs to learn more about what bitcoin is, rather than rable about just turning bitcoin into fiat..
trainwreck is missing the point

bringing the topic back on point

GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

1. PROVE how backward compatible things are by getting your partner BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit confirmed tx in it.. worse case rejected in 3 seconds.. best case nothing bad. and it instills confidence.
2. make it dynamic segwit. that way when people realise segwit activation day solved nothing(due to needing users needing to do other things beyond segwit activation).. atleast people are then able to move on with dynamics rather than waiting another 2 years for core to make more excuses


the reason i say this. is not because its a solution.. but because gmaxwell will refuse to do them, thus reveal the real blockstream agenda. i just wanna see gmaxwells word twisting excuses to avoid 1,2

[traincarswreck]

now trainwreck is just rambling

WTF does a theory in the 1800's have to do with bitcoin.. bitcoin is new revolutionary economics
yet trainwreck is rambling how bitcoin should be following the old economics path.


GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

1. PROVE how backward compatible things are by getting your partner BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit confirmed tx in it.. worse case rejected in 3 seconds.. best case nothing bad. and it instills confidence.
2. make it dynamic segwit. that way when people realise segwit activation day solved nothing(due to needing users needing to do other things beyond segwit activation).. atleast people are then able to move on with dynamics rather than waiting another 2 years for core to make more excuses


the reason i say this. is not because its a solution.. but because gmaxwell will refuse to do them, thus reveal the real blockstream agenda. i just wanna see gmaxwells word twisting excuses to avoid 1,2

It wasn't me that brought up the 1800's event, I was responding to @iamnotback who brought it forth, but not with any context.  Gmax isn't here.

[jonald_fyookball]

A part of me wants to be nice and say: Give Greg the benefit of the doubt -- maybe he really truly believes in his heart of hearts that he's acting in the best interest of Bitcoin.    

honestly - how can you even question this..!? He does. You're just being a twat.

IF he does, he's being extremely bull-headed by not advocating for some on chain scaling relief sooner rather than later, instead of stubbornly insisting we have to do things his way and wait for segwit, regarldess of altcoins eating our marketshare, declining utilility, declining Bitcoin reputation, and erosion of our first mover advantage.
 

So, nothing personal  (at least from me)... but we see exactly what you are doing, we oppose it, and we will not be silenced.
 

LOL.. you've MADE it personal. You see nothing except what you want to see.

I mean , I don't 'hate' Adam or Greg -- i've never even met them.  But like the OP, I hate the fact that my investment in Bitcoin appears to be getting fucked.

CORE want more txns. Stop saying they don't. They just disagree with the ridiculous notion that it can be achieved ON CHAIN. As do most of us. (And I'm talking about serious LARGE amount of txns )

What happens when your BU blocks are full.. ? Increase block size ? Because there WILL BE NO END TO THAT. They will always fill up. This fantasy about a Market determining the block size is 'idiotic'. You'll just stress the network, and be right back here (having wiped out MOST user nodes) in 6 months time. Then EITHER you increase  - or you tell all the other idiots who bought into this shit show, that block size increases weren't the way to go, and we need a secondary layer. DUH..

CORE are not your enemy. Ignorance and Fear are.

They want more txns but only in their way.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  we can have both on chain and off chain but why can't the free market decide -- why do we need a 1mb constraint that's centrally planned and given to us by Blockstream/Core, which essentially dictates how it should scale.  No one has ever given me a good answer to this question, and few even attempt to answer it because by doing so, they have to admit they are a centralist.

I would like to believe Core really thinks what they are doing is great for Bitcoin, and they may believe that, but I don't think their actions are good.

[GAFSD]

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

this is taking way to long...