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

[traincarswreck]

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?

YOU don't understand it, here's a primer:
https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310

Miners and Bitcoin Lightning

There’s been some weird ideas that if Lightning takes off, bitcoin miners might not make money from fees any more. Those of us involved are scratching our heads at this, but lets work it out:

    TL;DR: The bitcoin userbase is tiny. If we finally make bitcoin catch on for daily usage, miners will be just fine…

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.

There is no trust in the operation of it or a worry of cascading closing channels. It's not an oxymoron, but if you don't know much about it, then it might appear to be so.

[The One]

The lot of them above are talking bollocks. The problem with computer geeks is that they are brilliant at computer programming but piss poor at understand economics. That is true of every geek i've met in my life.

Have you ever read a book on economics?

Are you being funny? I spent 7 years studying business, computing, marketing, economics & accountancy. I read over 100 economics books and frequently write on Mises.org.

What about you?

[traincarswreck]

Are you being funny? I spent 7 years studying business, computing, marketing, economics & accountancy. I read over 100 economics books and frequently write on Mises.org.

What about you?

Sure but im not really formally educated.  Link me some of your writing there I will check it.  How do you spend 7 years reading 100 books on economics and come to the asinine conclusion we need raise the block size limit?  And what theory/theories are you founding this assertion on?

[The One]

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"

Have you seen the 3 movies yet? I've got them today and hoping to watch it later.

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

IMO, the main problem with LN is that its somewhat advertised as 'anyone can send to anyone else in the world by interconnected channels'.
However, no one has been able to explain yet (afaik) how that will be achieved using a mesh-like topology with sensible economics.
Instead, its looking like a network of "hubs".  

This wouldn't be a problem if people had free choice to use off chain vs on chain because if people felt the hubs got to be too
expensive or too regulated, they could choose to stop using them.  

Blockstream wants on-chain to be expensive.  They want you to use the LN.  

They will say "we know what's good for you.  The network could centralize
if nodes get too expensive, so we need to restrict the blocksize."  The part
they don't tell you is how you could end up using big centralized hubs, and
that the more expensive on chain is, the more centralized it will be.

[The One]

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.

I can quote whatever i want. I do not want BTC to break. I simply want it to do as its "says on the tin."

[The One]

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?

Do you realise that attacking everyone on here doesn't make you look good. Making assumptions is even worse. I do not imply anything but stating that this debate serves no purpose at all. The squabbling/division is insane. It will rumble on and on.

[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?

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.

I agree with you. However more adoption also equals higher value of BTC thus higher TF, unless satoshi per transaction falls. What is obvious is the the blocksize need to increase. Surely 2mb for now, then the developers can get together and decide on a new proposal to increase scaling and capacity that will be acceptable to all (90%) users.

[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?

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.

Well i've read it 3 times now and somewhat getting there. I do have specific questions to ask, but no idea who to ask as i'm not sure anyone understands it.

[traincarswreck]

Do you realise that attacking everyone on here doesn't make you look good. Making assumptions is even worse. I do not imply anything but stating that this debate serves no purpose at all. The squabbling/division is insane. It will rumble on and on.

It's not an attack to point out someone's conclusion is so off that they probably or seemingly haven't read the associated material.  You already responded to that post you quoted of me.  I responded to your response and asked you to link to some of your writing on mises.org so I might parse through it and get a better understanding of your perspective so I can speak to your argument better.

Links?

[The One]

Are you being funny? I spent 7 years studying business, computing, marketing, economics & accountancy. I read over 100 economics books and frequently write on Mises.org.

What about you?

Sure but im not really formally educated.  Link me some of your writing there I will check it.  How do you spend 7 years reading 100 books on economics and come to the asinine conclusion we need raise the block size limit?  And what theory/theories are you founding this assertion on?

I didn't say i read over 100 books in 7 years. Blocksize needs to go up. 2mb is nothing and will do Bitcoin a world of good for this year. It's not a permanent solution but it certainly better than all this squabbling and high TF that is going nowhere.

Link me some of your writing there I will check it. - nice try but i prefer to stay anonymous thanks.

[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?

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.

IMO, the main problem with LN is that its somewhat advertised as 'anyone can send to anyone else in the world by interconnected channels'.
However, no one has been able to explain yet (afaik) how that will be achieved using a mesh-like topology with sensible economics.
Instead, its looking like a network of "hubs".  

This wouldn't be a problem if people had free choice to use off chain vs on chain because if people felt the hubs got to be too
expensive or too regulated, they could choose to stop using them.  

Blockstream wants on-chain to be expensive.  They want you to use the LN.  

They will say "we know what's good for you.  The network could centralize
if nodes get too expensive, so we need to restrict the blocksize."  The part
they don't tell you is how you could end up using big centralized hubs, and
that the more expensive on chain is, the more centralized it will be.

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

[traincarswreck]

I didn't say i read over 100 books in 7 years. Blocksize needs to go up. 2mb is nothing and will do Bitcoin a world of good for this year. It's not a permanent solution but it certainly better than all this squabbling and high TF that is going nowhere.

Link me some of your writing there I will check it. - nice try but i prefer to stay anonymous thanks.

I see.  So you claim to have read 100 books on the subject.  And you claim you have writing on mises.  But you are unwillingly to back up those claims and unable.  You don't understand the macro economic implications of the block size limit.  And you don't want to reveal your identity to be linked to a few 100 posts on this forum but your identity is linked to your relevant writings on mises.org?

What impartial observer do you think will believe you based on these facts, based on such claims with no evidence and no willingness to back them up?

[The One]

I didn't say i read over 100 books in 7 years. Blocksize needs to go up. 2mb is nothing and will do Bitcoin a world of good for this year. It's not a permanent solution but it certainly better than all this squabbling and high TF that is going nowhere.

Link me some of your writing there I will check it. - nice try but i prefer to stay anonymous thanks.

I see.  So you claim to have read 100 books on the subject.  And you claim you have writing on mises.  But you are unwillingly to back up those claims and unable.  You don't understand the macro economic implications of the block size limit.  And you don't want to reveal your identity to be linked to a few 100 posts on this forum but your identity is linked to your relevant writings on mises.org?

What impartial observer do you think will believe you based on these facts, based on such claims with no evidence and no willingness to back them up?

On here and elsewhere are two or more different things. I am not prepared to have this and elsewhere linked ok. You are just going to have to accept it.

Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit." But be warned, macroeconomics is a load of rubbish.

[jonald_fyookball]

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible.  I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob.  Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all.  And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on, which she can perhaps no longer do because she is out of bitcoins.
  Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people.  You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

[traincarswreck]

You've read 100's of books on the subject and you write for misses and you think economics is a load of rubbish?

[The One]

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible.  I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob.  Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all.  And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on.  Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people.  You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

That what i am having a problem with. BTC, i send 1 BTC from a to b. Same with cash, debit card, online account. I have never gone back and forth multiples times between a and b. Now why would i need to go through another party like bob in your example. If i understand this right, if i were to send to b then both a and b must have a channel open and be online. Is that correct?

[The One]

You've read 100's of books on the subject and you write for misses and you think economics is a load of rubbish?

But be warned, macroeconomics is a load of rubbish. Stop twisting my sentence. I'm in favour of microeconomics. Understand the differences.

Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

[traincarswreck]

But be warned, macroeconomics is a load of rubbish. Stop twisting my sentence. I'm in favour of microeconomics. Understand the differences.

Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

It was a typo.  I meant to ask with all that knowledge and expertise you think macroeconomics is rubbish?

mac·ro·ec·o·nom·ics
ˈmakrōˌekəˈnämiks,ˈmakrōˌēkəˈnämiks/
noun
noun: macroeconomics; noun: macro-economics

    the part of economics concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity.

You think the study of economics concerned with large-scale or general economic factors, such as interest rates and national productivity is rubbish.  And you write for mises?  and you have read 100's of books on economics?

And you think I could explain to you the macro economic implications bitcoin's block size limit?

How do think we should attend to our global economy without macro-economics?

[jonald_fyookball]

Is it not possible to do LN using full nodes (non-miners) that exist now, rather than "hubs?"

It may be entirely possible.  I'm sure its possible with certain parameters, but no one has given a clear picture.

Suppose Alice wants to send Carol 5 bitcoins, through Bob.  Alice has a channel with Bob, and Bob has a channel with Carol.

Alice->Bob->Carol.

The channels must be 5 bitcoins "wide" first of all.  And both channels must pay fees for both opening and closing.
Alice and Carol can send money back and forth a gazillion times if both channels stay open and the amounts
stay within the channel parameters.

But if Carol needs her 5 bitcoins for whatever, and she closes the channel, then she has to open the channel with Bob
again before the transacting can go on.  Also, if Alice wants to send 10 bitcoins instead of 5, but Bob and Carol's channel
only supports 5 bitcoins, I don't think that is possible in a safe way.

So already there's complexity and we're talking about 3 people.  You can begin to imagine that as the network of people
grows, you start to need more big channels that stay open.

That what i am having a problem with. BTC, i send 1 BTC from a to b. Same with cash, debit card, online account. I have never gone back and forth multiples times between a and b. Now why would i need to go through another party like bob in your example. If i understand this right, if i were to send to b then both a and b must have a channel open and be online. Is that correct?

Not sure I fully get your question, but you seem to be getting at: why would they get through bob if they were planning to transact a bunch of times together directly?  And yeah, the answer is they should.  2 parties that are going to do a lot of back and forth can just open a channel and THAT makes sense, but that is not the typical use case...and that is too restricted of a scenario to help with worldwide scaling...so then the question becomes how will it work in a practical manner where anyone can pay anyone , if not for hubs.

If I just so happen to have a channel open with my buddy Dave, and we typically settle up at the end of the month, and I also happen to have a channel open with my wife... which stays open all the time, and my wife's happens to have a channel with her friend Lori, and Dave also has a channel up with his dad... and Lori knows Dave's dad , she could use the channel path... so theoretically it could work with the proper routing protocol, I just haven't seen it.