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

[ComputerGenie]

oh this pointless.

lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB

But people can't push their ideological preferences on everyone else if we do something that simple. 

[1715016947]

1715016947

[1715016947]

1715016947

[1715016947]

1715016947

[1715016947]

1715016947

[1715016947]

1715016947

[Quickseller]

oh this pointless.

lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB

What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability.

malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO.

[_nur]

i'm selling all bitcoin because of this

[franky1]

whens blockstreams election.. is been 3 years+ and no election
whens cores election.. is been 4 years+ and no election
BU just (tongue in cheek) put in an interim president for their implimentation (not the entire network) and set an election for 2 months later. which went ahead.

You have no claim to satoshi's hierarchy by the implementation of your own dictatorship. You admit a dictatorship, that chose it's own members to hold up its own rules.

It will never work, It can never work.  You are the laughing stocks of the future of humanity.

BU is just one of many implementations.
difference is
president BU wants to have an open single level playingfield network of many brands with their own presidents. all working on the same thing.

president blockstream wants to own the field and maintain it and decide who plays on his field. limiting what they can do on his field

[Killerpotleaf]

oh this pointless.

lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB

What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability.

malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO.

most of us agree LN is worth some R&D
 so ya go ahead and fix the annoyance...

But people can't push their ideological preferences on everyone else if we do something that simple. 

lol right, i keep forgeting BU vs Segwit, has nothing to do with "the debate" 

[Quickseller]

oh this pointless.

lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB

What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability.

malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO.

most of us agree LN is worth some R&D
 so ya go ahead and fix the annoyance...

If the primary reason for SW is LN, then first of all blockstream should be more transparent about this.

More importantly, it is the miners who are supposed to collect the TX fees in Bitcoin, not any 2nd layer solution.

Also I am not so sure how good of an idea it is to be changing the Bitcoin protocol in order to pick winners and losers.

[franky1]

oh this pointless.

lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB

What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability.

malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO.

also in LN because its a multisig (dual signing) if one person is malicious to sign his half malleated. the counterparty will spot it. and not sign.
if not spotting it.. and the malicious person then wanted to broadcast a 2nd tx within minutes.. guess what he needs the counter parties signature.. which the counter party would definitely refuse.. so.. only 1 tx gets in and a second tx cant even be created.

LN itself by being multisig solves the malleation problem.

what is not being told to people is the real reason to want to mess with all this segretated witness. as it has nothing to do with the empty promises of scale, malleation/bloat (which segwit wont fix network wide)

[Killerpotleaf]

oh this pointless.

lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB

What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability.

malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO.

most of us agree LN is worth some R&D
 so ya go ahead and fix the annoyance...

If the primary reason for SW is LN, then first of all blockstream should be more transparent about this.

More importantly, it is the miners who are supposed to collect the TX fees in Bitcoin, not any 2nd layer solution.

Also I am not so sure how good of an idea it is to be changing the Bitcoin protocol in order to pick winners and losers.

it is.
the effective block size, part of segwit, was a compromise meant to appease the big blockers. ironically enough this is the part that most big blockers have the most issues with.
I think mostly everyone is down to fix malleability.

the 2nd layer won't be ready for ages... and if miners can produce bigger blocks "real" bitcoin TX will be too cheap for most poeple to care about going to the second layer.

however 2nd layer could open up BTC to the ultra-micropayment level, imagine opening a channel and making 100's of tiny tiny TX for online games. things like that.

this kind of usecase bitcoin cannot currently DO very well, with LN that changes, and with that on-chain TX will also grow, because these ultra-micropayment-channels need to be funded Via BTC TX.

In the end we might very well end up with most of the normal TX on LN and BTC will become a settlement layer with 32MB blocks... and THAT'S FINE.

what is not fine is forcing it, to for sure become be that, by artificially limiting blocksize today.

[hv_]

I have a nice April compromise:

Lets mix and randomize Core and BU code and see what comes out !


Whoooooaaa!


 

[franky1]

I have a nice April compromise:

Lets mix and randomize Core and BU code and see what comes out !


Whoooooaaa!


 

bitcoinEC

[Quickseller]

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

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

[franky1]

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

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

2in 2 out... not that heavy

[Killerpotleaf]

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

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

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

[lurker10]

My assumption is that this year Bitcoin will hard fork in two chains, Core controled Segwit chain and BU chain. Community support is about equal for both in my estimates.

Ethereum opened a can of worms, now everybody wanna fork with success maybe we can see some Litecoin Unlimited soon?
My position focuses onto a single bitcoin blockchain containing merely 21mio BTC. Doubling that will end toxic, waisting the former social contract.

It isn't that everybody wants to fork.
It is about hostility of the Core and inability to compromise, a classic divorce case.
Here, look, one of Core devs proposed a compromise solution yesterday to the rest of the Core devs, to unite the Bitcoin community, to have both Segwit and a small increase of block limit to only 2MB. Certainly 2MB can't kill the network.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013921.html
It was immediately rejected.
Conclusion. They don't want a compromise, they want a power grab and full control.
Inability to compromise leads to inevitable divorce.
Economic majority would support Segwit+2MB block size, it's a reasonable compromise. But no, they want it all. Divorce is near. We just need to plan for it.

[traincarswreck]

Conclusion. They don't want a compromise, they want a power grab and full control.
Inability to compromise leads to inevitable divorce.
Economic majority would support Segwit+2MB block size, it's a reasonable compromise. But no, they want it all. Divorce is near. We just need to plan for it.

A forced compromise is a power control.  Anyone educated on the subject knows that its a terrible idea, anyone uneducated has your opinion.  All the active dev's are basically on the same page.  All those that don't actively contribute, generally, have the same ignorant conclusion. Divorce is near, all the people that want to destroy bitcoin by hard forking will soon stop posting and be laughed at for trying to interfere with something they don't understand and thinking they are smart because so many other ignorant people also share their opinion.

[Wind_FURY]

I know there is fear among the big blockers about it becoming like Paypal 2.0, but what if the system is a level playing field and an open one? I am sure Blockstream does not have a monopoly in setting up a payment hub service.

They do not have a monopoly, and I don't have any reason to suspect there isn't a level playing field.  The main issue for me is the entire market getting a huge boost to solve a problem that is being intentionally created by artificially restricting the main blockchain.  This is what is meant when people talk about "turning bitcoin from p2p cash into a settlement network."

I do not think that restricting the main blockchain is intentional. The 1MB maxblocksize limit is there as an anti spam measure. The Lightning Network is set up to carry some of the load and could do much more. Later, I believe there will be a need for a block size increase to accomodate the closing of LN's payment channels as they get settled on the main chain.

The 1mb blocksize was put there 7 years ago by Satoshi as a temporary measure.  LEAVING it there (long after it served its purpose)  is openly admitted as intentional by core as their economic policy is a 'healthy fee market'.  They do not deny this.

Ok thanks for the clarification. But that does not make any sense. Why then are the miners trying to support Bitcoin Unlimited if that will hurt their "healthy fee market"? What do you believe is in it for them if we hard fork to BU?

[jonald_fyookball]

Ok thanks for the clarification. But that does not make any sense. Why then are the miners trying to support Bitcoin Unlimited if that will hurt their "healthy fee market"? What do you believe is in it for them if we hard fork to BU?

Because there's no need for a fee market right now...maybe in a few decades, because right now miners get the block reward (12.5 BTC).   And its not even clear if fees would be bigger with small blocks anyway, because small blocks limit growth and limit the number of users paying fees.  So it makes the most sense not to worry about fees right now, and instead just focus on letting the network grow.

[kiklo]

Ok thanks for the clarification. But that does not make any sense. Why then are the miners trying to support Bitcoin Unlimited if that will hurt their "healthy fee market"? What do you believe is in it for them if we hard fork to BU?

Because there's no need for a fee market right now...maybe in a few decades, because right now miners get the block reward (12.5 BTC).   And its not even clear if fees would be bigger with small blocks anyway, because small blocks limit growth and limit the number of users paying fees.  So it makes the most sense not to worry about fees right now, and instead just focus on letting the network grow.

Hmm,

Currently Miners receive ~$1000 in transaction fees alone per block.
So that is almost like they are receiving an extra BTC per block, with no extra effort required on their part.

Sorry , but thinking someone is going to ignore an extra $1000 up to 144 times in 1 day,
works out to $144,000 every single day.

Do you guys think the miners are just stupid or what?

 

FYI:
Monthly that is $4,320,000 (>$4 million Dollars) you want them to piss away.  
(Also Transaction fees are going nowhere but UP.)

FYI2:
Increasing the Blocksize (BTU) means they can increase the # of Onchain Transactions and make more per block.
(Due to the extra capacity, Users will see a decrease in Fee Prices, because the miners can easily make more with lower more stable pricing and greater volume.) 

SegWit & LN are all about removing Transactions Offchain, meaning the miner will see reduced income from transaction fees, until the point LN/Banking Cartels Bankrupt the BTC miners and take over completely.  

[iamnotback]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[franky1]

Ok thanks for the clarification. But that does not make any sense. Why then are the miners trying to support Bitcoin Unlimited if that will hurt their "healthy fee market"? What do you believe is in it for them if we hard fork to BU?

Because there's no need for a fee market right now...maybe in a few decades, because right now miners get the block reward (12.5 BTC).   And its not even clear if fees would be bigger with small blocks anyway, because small blocks limit growth and limit the number of users paying fees.  So it makes the most sense not to worry about fees right now, and instead just focus on letting the network grow.

Hmm,

Currently Miners receive ~$1000 in transaction fees alone per block.
So that is almost like they are receiving an extra BTC per block, with no extra effort required on their part.

its more of a mindset of
'if you do cretain things you can have a 8% bonus'

yes they will try to get the bonus. but its not treated as basic income.
the flip between the reward:fee becoming bonus:income, wont happen for decades