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

[The One]

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?

Individual action - micro thus the sum of many micros - macro. When an individual changes their subjectivity - macro data fast out-of-date. Thus governments managing the economy will always fail.

Now stop beating around the bush and answer this - Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

[1714065074]

1714065074

[1714065074]

1714065074

[1714065074]

1714065074

[Alex.BTC]

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.

So everyone ends up with a postal system, you have mail boxes, mail hubs, post offices, mail routes, prepaid envelopes, stamps, even spam.

Except it's much more complex, you have to buy prepaid envelopes for different destinations, sometimes you can reuse them, but sometimes you can't and what's left is wasted, unless you do a refund at certain time.

Usually when you build a peer to peer delivery system, you end up with something like TCP/IP, or bittorrent.

LN at the current stage is like the worst of both worlds. How the hell is it even suppose to work in a small country?

The only sensible thing to do is to make everything in between simple and free, then charge network usage bandwidth from end points like ISPs, that's the only way it'll be simple enough to work properly. If you keep doing accounting between nodes, the accounting database will end up being millions times bigger than the blockchain itself.

And I think that's why Blockstream is holding the lock on 1MB, they're trying to build networks and ISPs on top of Bitcoin's blockchain.

[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?

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.

Why would two parties go back and forth so many times? I can't even think of any individuals doing that. I can imagine two companies trading with each other do go back and forth. Buy they already have a system in place that is better than LN.

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?

[traincarswreck]

Individual action - micro thus the sum of many micros - macro. When an individual changes their subjectivity - macro data fast out-of-date. Thus governments managing the economy will always fail.

Now stop beating around the bush and answer this - Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

It's a Keynesian theory, isn't it, that governments must manage our economy.  I don't agree, or at least I was unaware, that macroeconomics implies this. That studying the models and understanding them, implies we must apply our extrapolations from them.

If bitcoin can evolve as a gold, as an inflation hedge, it will put pressure on respective fiat. As bitcoin becomes more relevant as an inflation hedge, governments are forced to reign in their money supply.

Thus taking away their ability to arbitrarily print money, lest their lose all their customers.

The macro-economic implications are that government will no long control the value of money, and thus it will stabilize.

[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, 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.

So everyone ends up with a postal system, you have mail boxes, mail hubs, post offices, mail routes, prepaid envelopes, stamps, even spam.

Except it's much more complex, you have to buy prepaid envelopes for different destinations, sometimes you can reuse them, but sometimes you can't and what's left is wasted.

Usually when you build a peer to peer delivery system, you end up with something like TCP/IP, or bittorrent.

LN at this stage is like the worst of both worlds. How the hell is it even supposed to work for a small country?

The only sensible thing to do is to make everything in between simple and free, then charge network usage bandwidth from end points like ISP, that's the only way it'll be simple enough to work properly. If you keep doing accounting between nodes, the accounting database will end up being millions times bigger than than blockchain itself.

And I think that's why Blockstream is holding the lock on 1MB, they're trying to build networks and ISPs on top of Bitcoin's blockchain.

I asked jonald earlier, instead of hubs, why can't we do bi-directional channel using existing full nodes (non miner)?

[The One]

Individual action - micro thus the sum of many micros - macro. When an individual changes their subjectivity - macro data fast out-of-date. Thus governments managing the economy will always fail.

Now stop beating around the bush and answer this - Explain your reasoning for "macro economic implications of the block size limit."

It's a Keynesian theory, isn't it, that governments must manage our economy.  I don't agree, or at least I was unaware, that macroeconomics implies this. That studying the models and understanding them, implies we must apply our extrapolations from them.

If bitcoin can evolve as a gold, as an inflation hedge, it will put pressure on respective fiat. As bitcoin becomes more relevant as an inflation hedge, governments are forced to reign in their money supply.

Thus taking away their ability to arbitrarily print money, lest their lose all their customers.

The macro-economic implications are that government will no long control the value of money, and thus it will stabilize.

The government will never lose control of the money supply as politicians can only win election by bribing the idiots whom voted for them. If the money supply keeps on expanding, inflation keeps on going up, wages keeps on going up - Bitcoin value will keep on going up as there is only 21m coins. Fiat value goes down. The government can do what they want and my BTC will grow in value to compensate for the government's incompetence. You should be happy but those who don't have BTC will feel the pain. Therefore it is essential for BTC to grow. 2mb is perfectly safe and the best solution for now.

[jonald_fyookball]

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?

if you want to send to B with LN, you either have a channel with them, or go through another party like A.

Obviously you need to be online to send anything unless you're going to give someone a thumbdrive.
But generally, the bidreictional payments are P2P, not over bitcoin network except when opening and closing the channel.

[Alex.BTC]

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.

The most objective thing would be to just tell Core to patch the damn code.

I see you've caught that little subliminal message I placed near the end.

I asked jonald earlier, instead of hubs, why can't we do bi-directional channel using existing full nodes (non miner)?

You can almost hear Adam Back gasping: You mean cut out the middle man? How the hell is Blockstream supposed to get paid?

[The One]

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?

if you want to send to B with LN, you either have a channel with them, or go through another party like A.

Obviously you need to be online to send anything unless you're going to give someone a thumbdrive.
But generally, the bidreictional payments are P2P, not over bitcoin network except when opening and closing the channel.

My question is do both a and b need to be online?

[Quickseller]

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?

if you want to send to B with LN, you either have a channel with them, or go through another party like A.

Obviously you need to be online to send anything unless you're going to give someone a thumbdrive.
But generally, the bidreictional payments are P2P, not over bitcoin network except when opening and closing the channel.

My question is do both a and b need to be online?

Yes.

[The One]

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?

if you want to send to B with LN, you either have a channel with them, or go through another party like A.

Obviously you need to be online to send anything unless you're going to give someone a thumbdrive.
But generally, the bidreictional payments are P2P, not over bitcoin network except when opening and closing the channel.

My question is do both a and b need to be online?

Yes.

That was i understood but hopefully right. In that case LN is inferior to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not sensitive to timezones. I can send BTC to a person in USA or Australia at any time and not worry that they are still asleep. With LN i have to wait till they bloody wake up. Sorry but we need a better solution.

[traincarswreck]

The government will never lose control of the money supply as politicians can only win election by bribing the idiots whom voted for them. If the money supply keeps on expanding, inflation keeps on going up, wages keeps on going up - Bitcoin value will keep on going up as there is only 21m coins. Fiat value goes down. The government can do what they want and my BTC will grow in value to compensate for the government's incompetence. You should be happy but those who don't have BTC will feel the pain. Therefore it is essential for BTC to grow. 2mb is perfectly safe and the best solution for now.

This is what happens when you don't understand macroeconomics.  You believe in the silly notion of hyperbitcoinization from hyper inflation of fiat.  Governments have the ability to adjust the quality of money they historically didn't need to because they had no competition.  Bitcoin, if left unchanged, will cause fiat to have a proper relation to the underlying economy it represents thus strengthening the quality of it.

Changing the limit is not necessary for this to happen thus 2mb doesn't solve anything therefore it will happen because the network will continue to reject such an irrational proposal that has no basis in economic theory, just like its been rejecting such proposals all along.

Bu supporters, r/btc crowd, and big blockers such as yourself are all the same, none of them understand economics. They are just vocal and angry at the people that actually do.

This thread is full of this type of people all high fiving each others ignorance.

[traincarswreck]

Yes.

If the lighting channel transaction doesn't need to propagate then why does either participant need to use the internet?

[anonymoustroll420]

That was i understood but hopefully right. In that case LN is inferior to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not sensitive to timezones. I can send BTC to a person in USA or Australia at any time and not worry that they are still asleep. With LN i have to wait till they bloody wake up. Sorry but we need a better solution.

The idea is companies like coinbase who already have lots of users and merchants will run lightning hubs that are online 24/7 and allow you to transact with those other users/merchants.

Additionally lightning is really only for microtransactions. It only works with amounts less than 0.042btc (you'll need to open bigger channels for bigger amounts). It's for doing things like buying coffee, you can buy coffee and the transaction will go through instantly, no standing around in the barista waiting for a confirmation and no $0.30 fee for such a small tx.

If the lighting channel transaction doesn't need to propagate then why does either participant need to use the internet?

The hub needs to "make the adjustments" to each channel.

[Quickseller]

Yes.

If the lighting channel transaction doesn't need to propagate then why does either participant need to use the internet?

They need to be able to communicate with eachother to send eachother the signatures to the updates closing transactions. They don't have to use the internet to do this, however it, by far makes the most sense to.

[traincarswreck]

They need to be able to communicate with eachother to send eachother the signatures to the updates closing transactions. They don't have to use the internet to do this, however it, by far makes the most sense to.

You figure when they asked you a and b need to be online what they meant was "do a and b need to be able to communicate with each other in any shape or form?"?

[The One]

The government will never lose control of the money supply as politicians can only win election by bribing the idiots whom voted for them. If the money supply keeps on expanding, inflation keeps on going up, wages keeps on going up - Bitcoin value will keep on going up as there is only 21m coins. Fiat value goes down. The government can do what they want and my BTC will grow in value to compensate for the government's incompetence. You should be happy but those who don't have BTC will feel the pain. Therefore it is essential for BTC to grow. 2mb is perfectly safe and the best solution for now.

This is what happens when you don't understand macroeconomics.  You believe in the silly notion of hyperbitcoinization from hyper inflation of fiat.  Governments have the ability to adjust the quality of money they historically didn't need to because they had no competition.  Bitcoin, if left unchanged, will cause fiat to have a proper relation to the underlying economy it represents thus strengthening the quality of it.

Changing the limit is not necessary for this to happen thus 2mb doesn't solve anything therefore it will happen because the network will continue to reject such an irrational proposal that has no basis in economic theory, just like its been rejecting such proposals all along.

Bu supporters, r/btc crowd, and big blockers such as yourself are all the same, none of them understand economics. They are just vocal and angry at the people that actually do.

This thread is full of this type of people all high fiving each others ignorance.

Do yourself a favour. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are an economic illiterate. Shut up.

You believe in the silly notion of hyperbitcoinization from hyper inflation of fiat.

I never used the word hyper. Don't you even know what hyperinflation is?
Politicians will do whatever they want and will not change there economic policies based on Bitcoin. They will create money when they need it and not going to stop because of Bitcoins. Banks will create fake money as long as people demand it and will not stop because of Bitcoin. You are living in a fantasy la la land if you think banks and politicians will let Bitcoin dictate their policies.

Finally i never said i was in the BU, r/btc crowd, etc. Stop making things up.

[traincarswreck]

I never used the word hyper. Don't you even know what hyperinflation is?
Politicians will do whatever they want and will not change there economic policies based on Bitcoin. They will create money when they need it and not going to stop because of Bitcoins. Banks will create fake money as long as people demand it and will not stop because of Bitcoin. You are living in a fantasy la la land if you think banks and politicians will let Bitcoin dictate their policies.

Finally i never said i was in the BU, r/btc crowd, etc. Stop making things up.

I never said you used the word hyper.  Hyperbitcoinization is the exact scenario you described: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/

The idea bitcoin will hyper-inflate fiat out of existence or relevance is silly and comes from people that don't understand macro economics

Here is a congressional research report on bitcoin that explains that as bitcoin becomes relevant central banks will be FORCED to reign in supply
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

Politicians do not decide money supply.  

You are an economic illiterate. Shut up.

Youve shown no prowess that suggests you could possibly be a relevant writer on misses, and I would be blown away if your claims you read 100 books on the subject of economics was true. And yes you called me a name and told me to shut up which makes me think you are between 15 and 20

Finally i never said i was in the BU, r/btc crowd, etc. Stop making things up.

I said "bigblockers like yourself" refering to your want to increase the block size.

[The One]

That was i understood but hopefully right. In that case LN is inferior to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not sensitive to timezones. I can send BTC to a person in USA or Australia at any time and not worry that they are still asleep. With LN i have to wait till they bloody wake up. Sorry but we need a better solution.

The idea is companies like coinbase who already have lots of users and merchants will run lightning hubs that are online 24/7 and allow you to transact with those other users/merchants.

Additionally lightning is really only for microtransactions. It only works with amounts less than 0.042btc (you'll need to open bigger channels for bigger amounts). It's for doing things like buying coffee, you can buy coffee and the transaction will go through instantly, no standing around in the barista waiting for a confirmation and no $0.30 fee for such a small tx.

If the lighting channel transaction doesn't need to propagate then why does either participant need to use the internet?

The hub needs to "make the adjustments" to each channel.

That is not much of a solution for people who want to send to another person with many timezones difference.

User a to merchant b i can understand. User a (EU) to user b (Aus) - nah won't work. Merchant a to user b is tricky when user b isn't online. Merchant can stay online 24 hours, most users won't.

[The One]

I never used the word hyper. Don't you even know what hyperinflation is?
Politicians will do whatever they want and will not change there economic policies based on Bitcoin. They will create money when they need it and not going to stop because of Bitcoins. Banks will create fake money as long as people demand it and will not stop because of Bitcoin. You are living in a fantasy la la land if you think banks and politicians will let Bitcoin dictate their policies.

Finally i never said i was in the BU, r/btc crowd, etc. Stop making things up.

I never said you used the word hyper.  Hyperbitcoinization is the exact scenario you described: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/

The idea bitcoin will hyper-inflate fiat out of existence or relevance is silly and comes from people that don't understand macro economics

Here is a congressional research report on bitcoin that explains that as bitcoin becomes relevant central banks will be FORCED to reign in supply
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

Politicians do not decide money supply.  

You are an economic illiterate. Shut up.

Youve shown no prowess that suggests you could possibly be a relevant writer on misses, and I would be blown away if your claims you read 100 books on the subject of economics was true. And yes you called me a name and told me to shut up which makes me think you are between 15 and 20

Finally i never said i was in the BU, r/btc crowd, etc. Stop making things up.

I said "bigblockers like yourself" refering to your want to increase the block size.

That article is pants. Bother someone else unless you got something constructive to say regarding LN.