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

[cryptoanarchist]

Are you claiming to have ever read a book on economics, because your post here seems to show you have zero understanding economics, macro economics, central banking, or the existing banking system works?

Quite a few. Care to substantiate your ad hominem attack with something of merit? Or are you just slinging poo?

[1714782563]

1714782563

[1714782563]

1714782563

[1714782563]

1714782563

[1714782563]

1714782563

[1714782563]

1714782563

[1714782563]

1714782563

[traincarswreck]

Quite a few. Care to substantiate your ad hominem attack with something of merit? Or are you just slinging poo?

Examples?  Its not ad hominem I'm asking if you have any actual knowledge of economics because what you said suggests you don't.  So give us some examples of economic related books you have so I can speak to some of your knowledge and you might demonstrate the truth that it exists.

[cryptoanarchist]

what you said suggests you don't.

Can you quote what part of what I said suggests I don't?

[traincarswreck]

what you said suggests you don't.

Can you quote what part of what I said suggests I don't?

You want me to quote the whole post?  You claimed you know and read economics, what books!?

[cryptoanarchist]

what you said suggests you don't.

Can you quote what part of what I said suggests I don't?

You want me to quote the whole post?  You claimed you know and read economics, what books!?

Can you explain how what I said displays ignorance? If you want to make an argument, I'd love to hear it. Just saying, "You're a dummy, what books have you read" in anticipation of just marginalizing whatever I say, is kind of pointless.

[traincarswreck]

Can you explain how what I said displays ignorance? If you want to make an argument, I'd love to hear it. Just saying, "You're a dummy, what books have you read" in anticipation of just marginalizing whatever I say, is kind of pointless.

You didn't say anything of substance so what can I quote. 

I return to my original assertion which  you could EASILY refute.  You have never read a book on economics.  If so which ones?

[The One]

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."

This is from Satoshi's whitepaper.

Abstract.
A  purely peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.

This is what most of us understood when we all got involved. This is what i want. The ability to send from a to b. No queue jumping. No crap about free market fee competition when they don't understand what free market is. No going through "financial institution" - 3rd party - centralisation. Certainly not settlement network.

[cryptoanarchist]

Can you explain how what I said displays ignorance? If you want to make an argument, I'd love to hear it. Just saying, "You're a dummy, what books have you read" in anticipation of just marginalizing whatever I say, is kind of pointless.

You didn't say anything of substance so what can I quote. 

I return to my original assertion which  you could EASILY refute.  You have never read a book on economics.  If so which ones?

Who cares but you? The fact you think that is important shows your ignorance to me. I had an economics professor who WROTE an economics book laugh at me in 2006 when I said gold would not only not go back to 300 but would go even higher.

In 2011 to even now, every economics major on earth was/is telling us how bitcoin was going to fall to zero. What good did those official "Economics" books do them? They missed out on the investing opportunity of a lifetime.

Want a good "economics" book that I've read" Try "Atlas Shrugged"

[cryptoanarchist]

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."

This is from Satoshi's whitepaper.

Abstract.
A  purely peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.

This is what most of us understood when we all got involved. This is what i want. The ability to send from a to b. No queue jumping. No crap about free market fee competition when they don't understand what free market is. No going through "financial institution" - 3rd party - centralisation. Certainly not settlement network.

OMG, this, this, and more this. Too many people are onto this idea and have felt its power. The cat is out of the bag. IF you guys succeed at ruining bitcoin, you will leave a vaccuum for the hundreds of other CCs waiting to take its place.

[traincarswreck]

Who cares but you? The fact you think that is important shows your ignorance to me. I had an economics professor who WROTE an economics book laugh at me in 2006 when I said gold would not only not go back to 300 but would go even higher.

In 2011 to even now, every economics major on earth was/is telling us how bitcoin was going to fall to zero. What good did those official "Economics" books do them? They missed out on the investing opportunity of a lifetime.

Want a good "economics" book that I've read" Try "Atlas Shrugged"

So you have not read a single book on economics and it show in your religious beliefs on what the functions of banks are. I'll school you on Rand as well.

[traincarswreck]

This is from Satoshi's whitepaper.

Abstract.
A  purely peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.

This is what most of us understood when we all got involved. This is what i want. The ability to send from a to b. No queue jumping. No crap about free market fee competition when they don't understand what free market is. No going through "financial institution" - 3rd party - centralisation. Certainly not settlement network.

You can quote this all you want but it doesn't mean what you think it does, and that you were mistaken on its meaning is not a reason to break bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

Can you explain how what I said displays ignorance? If you want to make an argument, I'd love to hear it. Just saying, "You're a dummy, what books have you read" in anticipation of just marginalizing whatever I say, is kind of pointless.

You didn't say anything of substance so what can I quote. 

I return to my original assertion which  you could EASILY refute.  You have never read a book on economics.  If so which ones?

Who cares but you? The fact you think that is important shows your ignorance to me. I had an economics professor who WROTE an economics book laugh at me in 2006 when I said gold would not only not go back to 300 but would go even higher.

In 2011 to even now, every economics major on earth was/is telling us how bitcoin was going to fall to zero. What good did those official "Economics" books do them? They missed out on the investing opportunity of a lifetime.

Want a good "economics" book that I've read" Try "Atlas Shrugged"

Best to ignore him.  He just likes to run his mouth, pollute threads, and feel smarter than everyone else, when in fact he's tried to promote some of the most irrational ideas possible.

[traincarswreck]

Best to ignore him.  He just likes to run his mouth, pollute threads, and feel smarter than everyone else, when in fact he's tried to promote some of the most irrational ideas possible.

I find it strange when someone claims they read economic books and I ask them to give examples, and they repeatedly derail the request, that you come in and try to further derail the request.

This thread is full of example now of me pointing that people claiming to be superior to core in knowledge on the subject of economics have not actually acquired any such knowledge.

"Banks are evil" is not an example of prowess of economics, it simply shows ignorance because we fear what we don't understand.

[The One]

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

Surely both are irrelevant. The final say doesn't lie with developers but the community of bitcoins users. At the moment there is a stalement and it's going nowhere.

Personally all developers should agree to withdraw their "upgrades" and just raise the blocksize to 2mb now. Then the developers can go back to squabbling among each other for all i care.

[traincarswreck]

Surely both are irrelevant. The final say doesn't lie with developers but the community of bitcoins users. At the moment there is a stalement and it's going nowhere.

Personally all developers should agree to withdraw their "upgrades" and just raise the blocksize to 2mb now. Then the developers can go back to squabbling among each other for all i care.

What do you mean by "Personally" here?  That its just your personal opinion?

You say the final say rests with users, but who are you talking about?  People that spend bitcoin?  That's not even true.  Many different groups get a "final say" and coming on a forum to quote the word "cash" and "p2p" from a whitepaper I'm not convinced yet you have read, and to imply a decentralized group of contributors to a project that devote their lives to understanding don't know as much as you, is really really ignorant and asinine.  Don't you think?

[The One]

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.  

That is a problem, one of the many, i have with LN. Taking TF from miners would destabilise the maintenance of the network as altruism isn't going to be enough. The point of TF is to replace POW rewards in 20ish years time. I do not get why everyone is so up for LN. Do people really understand it?

[franky1]

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.

That is a problem, one of the many, i have with LN. Taking TF from miners would destabilise the maintenance of the network as altruism isn't going to be enough. The point of TF is to replace POW rewards in 20ish years time. I do not get why everyone is so up for LN. Do people really understand it?

TF are not a problem or a concern today. pools dont need them.

so i see no reason at all to be pushing for 600% 'bonus' growth in under a year
EG no need for
year   block    txcap     fee total
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   01mb   2200      $1320.00(60c/tx)

by actually growing the blockspace we can increase bitcoins utility.
(i am not talking about gigabytes by midnight, im talking natural growth within capability of nodes over time. (productive slow natural growth)

this will allow instead of 2200 TF payers paying 6x this year as they did last year. but
4400 paying the same this year as last year, yet giving pools double the bonus.

EG
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   02mb   4400      $440.00(10c/tx)
2018   03mb   6600      $660.00(10c/tx)
2019   04mb   8800      $880.00(10c/tx)
..
2084   69mb   151800   $15,180.00(10c/tx)

remember tech will be very different in decades and the block reward dozen 100% disappear for a century. so the need for fee's is not essential now.
the flip between reward(income):fee(bonus).. to reward(bonus):fee(income) wont happen in the next couple years. but sometime between a couple DECADES to a century.

[AngryDwarf]

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.  

That is a problem, one of the many, i have with LN. Taking TF from miners would destabilise the maintenance of the network as altruism isn't going to be enough. The point of TF is to replace POW rewards in 20ish years time. I do not get why everyone is so up for LN. Do people really understand it?

I'm not sure I really understand LN. From what I can work out, it is a trustless system which requires trust to operate. As soon as the participants do not trust each other, they start a cascade of closing channels. Sounds like something of an Oxymoron. Perhaps I should try to understand it better.

[The One]

What is fun free market will push LN with lover quality version on BTC because of BTC bugs.

What bugs?

[The One]

This whole ASICBoost bullshit is yet another distraction from Blockstream/Core keeping the blocksize at 1M and screwing everyone else over.

ASICBoost was out of the bag ages ago, patents don't stop any nameless mining farm from building their own ASICBoost rigs. If Core don't like ASICBoost, they should just fix the damn code instead of crying about it every year.

The ASICBoost write paper used way too much tech jargon, and when it comes to implementations all you get is "We will not discuss the optimal solution in this paper, but further information can be provided by the author on request."

So a year later half the devs still don't know how it works, if the devs can't even figure it out, it'll be even worse for users, so you end up with all these trolls trying to get away with making the most ridiculous statements, creating new enemy-of-the-week trying to distract people from Blockstream/Core's own fuck ups.

ASICBoost is:
1.  

2. It is possible because sha256 processes data in 64 bytes chunks, but the header is 80 bytes long.

3. So the block header is split into 2 chunks when sha256 computes its hash.

4. The merkle root inside the block header, spans over the position that sha256 split the chunks.

5. The merkle root is 32 bytes, 28 bytes of it (head) ended up in the first chunk, 4 bytes of it (tail) ended up in the 2nd chunk.

6. The second chunk has 16 bytes of data and 48 bytes of padding.

7. Of the 16 bytes of the data in the second chunk, 4bytes is the merkle root tail, the other 12 bytes are  time/difficulty/nonce, all known values by the miner.

8. That means if a miner can generate a bunch of hash with the same last 4 bytes, then the entire 2nd chunk, all 16+48 bytes of it becomes a fixed known value.

9. A fixed value means it can be reused, this allows miners to simplify the sha256 mining loop, so that it only uses 3 sha256 operations instead of 4 and increase efficiency.

10. The more 'hash with the same last 4 bytes' a miner can generate, the more times they can use the short cut, the more performance gain, this process is called 'finding partial hash collision'.

11. To generate these partial hash collisions, miners have to keep changing the data on the block then get a new hash at high speed, but different ways have different costs, only a few of them is worth while.

12. One of the fastest way to find hash collisions is to keep changing the extranonce in the coinbase, at the same time keep reordering tx in the block. This modifies both side of the merkle tree parallelly and allow further math shortcuts to take place.

13. Changing the coinbase and reordering tx is computationally costly, it is only worthwhile if you can do both at the same time without affecting each other.

14. In regular Bitcoin, modifying tx changes the right side of the merkle tree, and modifying the coinbase changes the left side of the merkle tree, the coinbase on the left doesn't care what happens to the tx on the right, and vice versa. There are no double overhead modifying data on any side, so in the end you can gain a 20% advantage with ASICBoost.

15. But if the coinbase merkle root includes the hash of all the tx, then ASICBoost is no longer worth the effort, in fact it'd make mining slower, because now every time you reorder the tx, the coinbase also changes, and you have to use an extra 10 or so operations to update the left side of the merkle tree. That 20% advantage is gone.

16. This is what happens in BIP-141 SegWit, the coinbase has a new merkle root call the 'witness root hash', that includes all regular and side tx. This makes the reordering tx also updates the coinbase, miners have to run extra operations for each reordering, this double overhead makes it too costly to use ASICBoost.

17. Extension Block is base on BIP-141, they have the same commitment structure, so Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost.

18. If anyone is using ASICBoost, the 'overt' method involves modifying block header data directly, so you'll see strange version numbers and other weird data, the 'covert' method involves reordering of tx, or empty blocks, these are also obvious.

19. If there is a new way to use ASICBoost without obvious side effects, then it's just another valid optimization on generating hash, optimization happens all the time.

20. The excuse of ASICBoost patent may lead to centralization is also silly, there are so many patent involved with mining already, from chip to connectors to cooling, everywhere you look there is a patent. Mining is so competitive, every year there are a bunch of new optimizations with a new bunch of patents. The biggest problem with ASICBoost is once it's used, it'll leave obvious patterns in the blockchain, the anomalies will be spotted very quickly.

That would be subjective.
If one decide the objective of POW is to hash fully and whoever gets it first wins then fair do - subjective.
If one decide the objective of POW is to hash fully and a miner isn't hashing fully, (A programming short cut of using 3 sha256 operations instead of 4 when mining a block hash.) then one may decide that the miner is cheating based on a principle and not regard it as optimisation - subjective.

Objective is better than subjective. You can see way the debates goes on and on. There are two subjectives to one objective. Thus two opinions. Of course people may decide there are more opinions but i am just mentioning 2. Who is right and who is wrong - neither.