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

[jonald_fyookball]

 wtf does this even mean?

whatever you want it to mean.  I wasn't addressing you.

[traincarswreck]

whatever you want it to mean.  I wasn't addressing you.

You weren't addressing anyone with anything.  There was no argument you put forth and it wasn't based on anything.  You literally FUD away any reasonable argument. 

"lightning is bad because I don't understand it and I refuse to consult and research expert explanations and therefore it is complex and will be bad".

WTF do you think you are a fooling?

[jonald_fyookball]

whatever you want it to mean.  I wasn't addressing you.

You weren't addressing anyone with anything.  There was no argument you put forth and it wasn't based on anything.  You literally FUD away any reasonable argument. 

"lightning is bad because I don't understand it and I refuse to consult and research expert explanations and therefore it is complex and will be bad".

WTF do you think you are a fooling?

Won't be baited into a false debate with you... all you're doing is proving again your trollishness and bumping the thread.

[The One]

In your opinion is it a good design?

Don't use this question.

Could it lead to a fractional reserve type of banking system based on blockchain backed BTC?

Factional reserve system is good and great and there is really no other system, because it makes sense for banks to loan money that they don't particularly have provided they choose decent customers for those loans.

It only gets bad if their is a monopoly on the money supply and if government will bail out bad banks, because then their is no reason for the banks to only make good loans.

LN with bitcoin is like a defacto fractional reserve system, you can't really loan more money than you have so it always has a perfect standard. But what it will do is put pressure on the existing fractional reserve system to make better and good loans.

Bitcoin is the missing link to fractional reserve banking.  So you can understand why ignorant people like One thinks macro-economics (ie fractional reserve banking) is evil, because they don't understand that Smith Hayek Nash all predicated their arguments on an open market in which its not just the government that prints money and bails out banks.

Could a user receive and then transact in these promissory notes without having opening a blockchain based channel? (i.e., they can just open a lightning network account instead?)

No "lightning network account" is not a real thing.  In essence you are basically commiting an amount of bitcoin in one transaction without sending (but locking them from being spent otherwise until you settle all the future transactions).

You have to do that its part of the process.  And then you can incrementally decide to send promissory notes to the receiver.

So you make an initial bitcoin transaction that allows you to commit to micro-payments via any communication method. That's it.

Blimey, a socialist loony lefty on here. Rule number 1 - never debate with a socialist.

Goodbye.

[traincarswreck]

Won't be baited into a false debate with you... all you're doing is proving again your trollishness and bumping the thread.

You are the one trolling.  I am replying to your posts.  You are saying you won't debate me while constantly opening and responding to back forth discussion. I have done nothing but call you out for not having an argument and constantly citing fear uncertainty and doubt.  That is the entirety or your argument that we need to be afraid of the uncertainty which should cause doubt.  I'm convinced you don't actually realize that there is nothing scientific about that.

[traincarswreck]

Blimey, a socialist loony lefty on here. Rule number 1 - never debate with a socialist.

Goodbye.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't know the definition of socialist. Especially since you have never read a book on economics, or Marxism, or communism (or socialism).  I couldn't be more capitalistic in nature and my beliefs. I HAVE read The Wealth Of Nations and it is the basis for capitalism and I agree with it completely and whole heatedly and it absolutely explains how Scotland thrived with private banking cap reserve system because the banks were allowed to compete on a free market.  Again, I will cite and quote my claims if you try to argue them.

You have done nothing but show you know nothing about economics and you have not read a single book on the subject.

[jonald_fyookball]

I am replying to your posts. 

Yes, and I would be very happy if you wouldn't.

It is annoying when I am replying to someone else and you feel the need to chime in and address me directly.   


 

isnt this the guy that told lies about Bitmain etc.  what was the story?

This thread is full me pointing examples and give evidence showing that ya'll especially you, are only BU and r/btc and big blocker supporters because you don't know anything about economics and don't have any understanding of how bitcoin actually works.  Who do you think you are convincing with your bullshit?

This thread is FULL of me doing this.

[traincarswreck]

Yes, and I would be very happy if you wouldn't.

It is annoying when I am replying to someone else and you feel the need to chime in and address me directly.   

It's how forums work and what they are for. I'll bet you are annoyed cause you can't use bitcointalk, the forum Satoshi used to launch bitcoin as your circle jerk echo chamber for BU and r/btc lie spreading.   Every-time you post bullshit, I'm going to call you out for having no knowledge on the subject of bitcoin or economics, and every thread you pollute with your fear uncertainty and doubt about things you don't understand and a future you know nothing of, all you will do, is fill up the forum with me pointing out you have knowledge or understand of the subjects you are speaking of.

And its is certainty withing my right to correct you and expose your "shenanigans" as its a public forum

[jonald_fyookball]

   Every-time you post bullshit, I'm going to call you out for having no knowledge on the subject of bitcoin or economics

you have fun with that.  knock yourself out.

I'm just going to leave this link here so everyone can judge for themselves
whether your views are sane or insane.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18079053#msg18079053

[traincarswreck]

I'm just going to leave this link here so everyone can judge for themselves
whether your views are sane or insane.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18079053#msg18079053

do you have any knowledge to contribute to the discussion or just ad hominemy stuff directed at me and fud after fud after fud? You are linking to my explanation of how markets work and I do understand how they work and you do not, and you don't claim to, so what do you think you are showing people?

[Alex.BTC]

whatever you want it to mean.  I wasn't addressing you.

You weren't addressing anyone with anything.  There was no argument you put forth and it wasn't based on anything.  You literally FUD away any reasonable argument.  

"lightning is bad because I don't understand it and I refuse to consult and research expert explanations and therefore it is complex and will be bad".

WTF do you think you are a fooling?

Won't be baited into a false debate with you... all you're doing is proving again your trollishness and bumping the thread.

There are generally two types of trolls here:
1. troll by misinfo: Repeat the same lies over and over again, these ones are fun to pick apart.
2. troll by volume: These ones don't even have the intelligence to form coherent thoughts, they are paid only by volume so they have to troll by volume, their strategy is to post as much as possible to get as much reply as possible, their flaws are too obvious, it's not even worth the effort to respond, they just want volume, so just ignore them and watch them beg for your attention like little puppies.

[pereira4]

The only person I've seen pushing the "fractional reserve" myth is kiklo, but I can understand how it might have easily spread.  Since the total sum of BTC being transacted is still locked in place on the main Bitcoin blockchain, no more and no less can be transacted on LN.  Whichever amounts are being transacted on Lightning, they are always "backed" by an equal amount of bitcoin.  No coins can be created out of thin air.

It all depends on how far we deviate from the original P2P cash system.

The more complicated and layered it gets, the more potential for all kinds of schemes and shennanigans.

As it is now, even with LN, the fact that people could settle their transactions anytime makes it hard
to get around the fact that Bitcoin is a digital asset, not a debt instrument.

Still, even now, lets say there was a big company "petty cash quick payments" where you kept
a channel open for a long time and used it like a credit/debit card.... the longer you go without
closing the channel, the more room there is for abuse and owing more money than you have.

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

[Alex.BTC]

It all depends on how far we deviate from the original P2P cash system.

The more complicated and layered it gets, the more potential for all kinds of schemes and shennanigans.

As it is now, even with LN, the fact that people could settle their transactions anytime makes it hard
to get around the fact that Bitcoin is a digital asset, not a debt instrument.

Still, even now, lets say there was a big company "petty cash quick payments" where you kept
a channel open for a long time and used it like a credit/debit card.... the longer you go without
closing the channel, the more room there is for abuse and owing more money than you have.

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

You started off kind of good, the emotional energy was there, so I had my hopes up for a second, but then you ended up with 'layers such as HTML', what a let down.

HTML isn't even a 'scaling layer' for TCP/IP.

'Please refrain from posting technical nonsense'.

[jonald_fyookball]

The only person I've seen pushing the "fractional reserve" myth is kiklo, but I can understand how it might have easily spread.  Since the total sum of BTC being transacted is still locked in place on the main Bitcoin blockchain, no more and no less can be transacted on LN.  Whichever amounts are being transacted on Lightning, they are always "backed" by an equal amount of bitcoin.  No coins can be created out of thin air.

It all depends on how far we deviate from the original P2P cash system.

The more complicated and layered it gets, the more potential for all kinds of schemes and shennanigans.

As it is now, even with LN, the fact that people could settle their transactions anytime makes it hard
to get around the fact that Bitcoin is a digital asset, not a debt instrument.

Still, even now, lets say there was a big company "petty cash quick payments" where you kept
a channel open for a long time and used it like a credit/debit card.... the longer you go without
closing the channel, the more room there is for abuse and owing more money than you have.

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

I'm thinking 5% chance you would be interested in having a genuine conversation about the LN and being open to learning some things and maybe be wrong on a few points.  95% chance you just want to troll, promote the Core roadmap and try to win the argument at all costs.

[cryptoanarchist]

'Please refrain from posting technical nonsense'.

Technical nonsense is a large part of this forum!

[Lauda]

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

pereira4, that is one of the dumbest things that I've read these days and I've read a lot of shit from the BTU fanatics and the paid shills. Maybe you should not be attempting to pin-point what "technical nonsense" is or isn't, even to the likes of jonald.

I'm thinking 5% chance you would be interested in having a genuine conversation about the LN and being open to learning some things and maybe be wrong on a few points.  95% chance you just want to troll, promote the Core roadmap and try to win the argument at all costs.

If you really want to debate about LN, then you'd go talk to one of the development team working on their implementations of it. However, in reality you don't really want to have a 'genuine conversation'. You want to repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over again (see how 'Roger Ver' "debates" in pretty much any interview).

[jonald_fyookball]

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

pereira4, that is one of the dumbest things that I've read these days and I've read a lot of shit from the BTU fanatics and the paid shills. Maybe you should not be attempting to pin-point what "technical nonsense" is or isn't, even to the likes of jonald.

I'm thinking 5% chance you would be interested in having a genuine conversation about the LN and being open to learning some things and maybe be wrong on a few points.  95% chance you just want to troll, promote the Core roadmap and try to win the argument at all costs.

If you really want to debate about LN, then you'd go talk to one of the development team working on their implementations of it. However, in reality you don't really want to have a 'genuine conversation'. You want to repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over again (see how 'Roger Ver' "debates" in pretty much any interview).

Actually I did.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860165.0

As soon as I started asking how LN could be done p2p, the only response I got was Carlton Banks trolling.  
And even he seemed to be saying "you can't do p2p with LN, deal with it".  I assume no one has figured this out just yet...

Point is, at least I am thinking about these things and willing to have a serious conversation
vs trolls that don't even know what they are talking about.  Even you seem to agree with me that, based on your comment above about pereira4.

[cryptoanarchist]

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 367  ( 36.7% )            
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 3  ( 0.3% )            
SegWit blocks: 278  ( 27.8% )

Bitcoin-holder vote:  https://vote.bitcoin.com/


Miners and Bitcoin holders are both agreeing that bigger blocks are needed now. Core can stay relevant by updating Core to 8MB blocks, or no one will use their client.

[Alex.BTC]

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:
Bitcoin-holder vote:  https://vote.bitcoin.com/

Miners and Bitcoin holders are both agreeing that bigger blocks are needed now. Core can stay relevant by updating Core to 8MB blocks, or no one will use their client.

That is the real 'economic majority':
https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
68243.74954948 BTC agree that: Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible

[jonald_fyookball]

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:
Bitcoin-holder vote:  https://vote.bitcoin.com/

Miners and Bitcoin holders are both agreeing that bigger blocks are needed now. Core can stay relevant by updating Core to 8MB blocks, or no one will use their client.

That is the real 'economic majority':
https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
68243.74954948 BTC agree that: Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible

Well its more real than a random claim on a forum, that's for sure.

But this too is spoofable.  Easy for someone with big pockets to vote,
move their coins, vote again, etc...
 
Greg Maxwell is technically correct when he says UASF needs "very very broad"
acceptance to be considered... but clearly the scaling debate is not
the right place for it.  Unfortunately, he is tacitly condoning by not stating this fact,
because it is an intimidation tactic.