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

[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

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.

Blockstream shills kept throwing that word around, that's why it's in quotes.
It's hilarious that when it comes to actual vote-with-your-money, big blocks get most of the vote.

[Hyena]

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

You are being trolled, 8 mb is approximately 1 MiB because capital B stands for byte but smaller case b stands for bit. 1 byte = 8 bits. Thus 8 mb = 8000000 bits = 0.953674316 MiB
so if you agree with this you are actually voting for smaller blocks!!!!!!!!!!

edit:
even worse, smaller case m stands for milli and upper case M for mega. so you are voting for 8 millibits which does not even exist as a sensible unit in informatics 

[jonald_fyookball]

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

[Darkbot]

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

Noob Jonald Fyookball, he still doesn't understand that Bitcoin cannot go mainstream with only bigger blocks.

FUD article.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

Noob Jonald Fyookball, he still doesn't understand that Bitcoin cannot go mainstream with only bigger blocks.

FUD article.

FUD article?  No its a major pool explaining their reasons.

All the arguments against bigger blocks have been debunked/debated already but if you want
to go again, I'm game.  Give it your best shot.

[Hyena]

SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.

[cryptoanarchist]

SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.

Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.

Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.

I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.

[Hyena]

SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.

Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.

Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.

I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.

That's good reasoning. I also think that ethereum classic is the one that eventually gets more popular. so even if in the beginning segwitcoin generates more media and might even trade on pretty decent prices it is the losing fork in the long run. and then all those whiners who are still butthurt for not buying bitcoin "when it was cheap" miss the train again by not buying into the big blocks bitcoin when it was cheap.

[cryptoanarchist]

SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.

Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.

Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.

I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.

That's good reasoning. I also think that ethereum classic is the one that eventually gets more popular. so even if in the beginning segwitcoin generates more media and might even trade on pretty decent prices it is the losing fork in the long run. and then all those whiners who are still butthurt for not buying bitcoin "when it was cheap" miss the train again by not buying into the big blocks bitcoin when it was cheap.

When the fork happens, it might become hard to withdraw or exchange the SW/Core-Bitcoin because the TX times/fees will be ridiculous. I would switch them out right away.

[Paashaas]

SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.

Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.

Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.

I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.

That's good reasoning. I also think that ethereum classic is the one that eventually gets more popular. so even if in the beginning segwitcoin generates more media and might even trade on pretty decent prices it is the losing fork in the long run. and then all those whiners who are still butthurt for not buying bitcoin "when it was cheap" miss the train again by not buying into the big blocks bitcoin when it was cheap.

When the fork happens, it might become hard to withdraw or exchange the SW/Core-Bitcoin because the TX times/fees will be ridiculous. I would switch them out right away.

That will not happen, the switch will add a decent hit in price and hash power but after 10 min BU miners will flow back ore they go bankrupt. The users are still secured enough during the process.

I wonder, do you really trust BU software and nodes? well, i dont anymore they had there shot and blew it. Segwitt might not be 'perfect' but it is still the best possible update Bitcoin can have. You need to make consessions i strongly advice to pick SW.

[cryptoanarchist]

SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.

Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.

Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.

I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.

That's good reasoning. I also think that ethereum classic is the one that eventually gets more popular. so even if in the beginning segwitcoin generates more media and might even trade on pretty decent prices it is the losing fork in the long run. and then all those whiners who are still butthurt for not buying bitcoin "when it was cheap" miss the train again by not buying into the big blocks bitcoin when it was cheap.

When the fork happens, it might become hard to withdraw or exchange the SW/Core-Bitcoin because the TX times/fees will be ridiculous. I would switch them out right away.

That will not happen, the switch will add a decent hit in price and hash power but after 10 min BU miners will flow back ore they go bankrupt. The users are still secured enough during the process.

I wonder, do you really trust BU software and nodes? well, i dont anymore they had there shot and blew it. Segwitt might not be 'perfect' but it is still the best possible update Bitcoin can have. You need to make consessions i strongly advice to pick SW.

I'm already running a BU node and an XT node. They work just fine..

[Paashaas]

I'm already running a BU node and an XT node. They work just fine..

I know, just wait untill BU gets open again. Fingers crossed.

[iMaster]

gold is not valued simply because its valued.
gold is valued because it has UTILITY
lets halt golds utility and make it so its only useful as jewellery.. thats right no electronic component utility because thats outside of its original utility. so lets limit it to just jewellery like it used to be
then go check your value because it has value stupid reasoning

[cryptoanarchist]

I'm already running a BU node and an XT node. They work just fine..

I know, just wait untill BU gets open again. Fingers crossed.

"Gets open"? What are you talking about? BU isn't "closed"

[Raize]

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

That's a bunch of votes from entities who do not care about their privacy. Note that I do not call these entities "users" by any means. That page is 100% astroturf.

[Quickseller]

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

That's a bunch of votes from entities who do not care about their privacy. Note that I do not call these entities "users" by any means. That page is 100% astroturf.

Actually, for a very long time, that page was cited frequently by nullc because many voting proposals had coins heavily favoring "core" friendly outcomes.

I am also not quite sure I follow when you say that site is bad for privacy. The amounts that each address contains is already public on the blockchain, and voting for a particular proposal does not imply that one address is connected to any other address.   

[jonald_fyookball]

btw does signing a message reveal pubkey?

[leopard2]

So far I was under the impression that LN is voluntary

If Facebook, Paypal or Satan (or worse, government) supports/owns/uses LN, why should we care? Just ignore and use the blockchain.

Now I have a slight nagging doubt for the first time. If the 4MB limit of Segwit is approached, is it possible that onchain transactions become so expensive that we would HAVE to use LN after all?

We could of course pressure for the 4MB limit to be increased. But Facebook, Paypal or Satan could just say: "Why? Not necessary. Use LN" and then BTC is fucked for good.

Am I paranoid? 

[franky1]

btw does signing a message reveal pubkey?

ill give you a hint.

ive already last year told rusty russel about the 'address reuse' attack that can happen inside LN
they are still trying to figure out how to get around that issue. bt for now they are just saying use only $60 or less inside LN to reduce risk of desire to perform such attack for such little amount
EG ruin a merchants rep as a hub if they done it for such small amount wont be worth doing it for such small amount

[jonald_fyookball]

  is it possible that onchain transactions become so expensive that we would HAVE to use LN after all?
 

ding ding ding....we have a winner. 

Yes, it is absolutely possible and the way to do that is limit the supply of transactions.
(think: supply and demand). 

How do you limit the supply?  Cap the blocksize.

You're not paranoid.

Hopefully you're waking up to what we've been screaming about all this time.