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

[Hyena]

Some people still don't understand that it's not about SegWit vs BU. It's about the protocol. BU is just ONE particular implementation for an upgraded Bitcoin protocol. It is not special in any way. Attacking the idea of a proper protocol upgrade that would increase the max block size by bringing up the fact that BU has had flaws in its implementation is nonsense. You are being utterly stupid if you think that BU wants to become THE Bitcoin. Such an assumption is based on a fallacy that Core IS THE Bitcoin. It's not, it has never been Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol much like HTML. Just because Firefox renders HTML does not mean HTML belongs to Mozilla. The stupidity is sickening.

[DooMAD]

Some people still don't understand that it's not about SegWit vs BU. It's about the protocol. BU is just ONE particular implementation for an upgraded Bitcoin protocol. It is not special in any way. Attacking the idea of a proper protocol upgrade that would increase the max block size by bringing up the fact that BU has had flaws in its implementation is nonsense. You are being utterly stupid if you think that BU wants to become THE Bitcoin. Such an assumption is based on a fallacy that Core IS THE Bitcoin. It's not, it has never been Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol much like HTML. Just because Firefox renders HTML does not mean HTML belongs to Mozilla. The stupidity is sickening.

Agreed to a point.  I think a certain level of fervent worship has crept in.  People have dubbed it a "civil war", but I'm now leaning more towards a "holy war".  Apparently you can't be implementation-agnostic anymore.  It's pretty much a case of pick a sect, grab the pitchforks and burn the heathens who go against the will of our lord and saviour, Satoshi.  Only one sect truly understands what Bitcoin is and what Satoshi really envisioned.  All other ideas are sacrilege.  Shun the nonbelievers.

It's all getting a bit farcical, really.  Both churches are seemingly praying for the onset of their own preferred End of Days, be it UASF or HF, which effectively boils down to whether the split is on your own sect's terms or the heathen's, even though the result is effectively the same.  I'm guessing it's all a not-so-subtle pretext to allow whoever gets the desired fork on their terms to call dibs on the mantle of the One True Bitcoin.  

[cryptoanarchist]

BU is up over 50% hashpower today. Sorry bankster trolls, but your precious SegWit is dead.

Actually, I'm not sorry. I'm laughing all the way to at the bank.

[jbreher]

I'm guessing it's all a not-so-subtle pretext to allow whoever gets the desired fork on their terms to call dibs on the mantle of the One True Bitcoin.

Which in itself is silly. That which amasses the preponderance of activity will be the The One True Bitcoin regardless of any other criteria.

[Quickseller]

So far I was under the impression that LN is voluntary

From a technical standpoint it will be optional however from what I can tell, the ultimate goal is to make it uneconomical to not use LN except for very large (in value) transactions.

[leopard2]

 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.

Ah. Did you notice, why Jihan is supporting Segwit on LTC, but only after being given the promise that (on LTC!) blocksize will be upped, as soon as it reaches 50% capacity. So the scenario above, will never occur.

He is not quite as evil as I heard 

So, we should support Segwit on BTC only under the same condition!!!!!!!!

In the meantime chikun is mooning  

[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.

Ah. Did you notice, why Jihan is supporting Segwit on LTC, but only after being given the promise that (on LTC!) blocksize will be upped, as soon as it reaches 50% capacity. So the scenario above, will never occur.

He is not quite as evil as I heard  
 

The Chinese miners always agreed to Segwit + bigger blocks as a HF.   That was what the infamous "Hong Kong Agreement" was about.
They agreed to this.  Then Core backed out.  The Core shills will twist this with ridiculous arguments of "welll...core didnt REALLY promise this etc".

Core is too dangerous and too untrustworthy to allow them to have Segwit now without bigger blocks.  They will absolutely abuse it and
kick the can down the road..this is why the miners are blocking the "Segwit only" option.

[nutildah]

Why Roger Ver won't actually push for the hard fork:

https://www.whois.com/whois/bitcoin.com

He owns the domain. If the fork hardens, he will create a massive amount of confusion if he tries to switch all the available information from being "bitcoin" to "Bitcoin Unlimited" related.

I'm all but sure BU's chances for a soft fork are dust in the wind at this point:

https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited

So if Rog & Co go ahead with the hard fork, it will really be a massive "fuck you" to the entire BTC community.

[franky1]

Why Roger Ver won't actually push for the hard fork:

bu and other diverse implementations that want blocks over 1mb want consensus of a diverse single peer network

stop reading reddit

its only core that want anything not core to f**k off. so core can dictate bitcoin.
core have the ban node code the pow killing bips and the threats and drama.

[nutildah]

Why Roger Ver won't actually push for the hard fork:

bu and other diverse implementations that want blocks over 1mb want consensus of a diverse single peer network

stop reading reddit

its only core that want anything not core to f**k off. so core can dictate bitcoin.
core have the ban node code the pow killing bips and the threats and drama.

I rarely read Reddit.

So you're cool if Rog was to hijack bitcoin.com to push BTU?
That's symbolic of the actions of a decent human being to you?

[X7]

Why Roger Ver won't actually push for the hard fork:

bu and other diverse implementations that want blocks over 1mb want consensus of a diverse single peer network

stop reading reddit

its only core that want anything not core to f**k off. so core can dictate bitcoin.
core have the ban node code the pow killing bips and the threats and drama.

Surprise, the usual shit posters here spamming their vitriol. Go outside, stretch breath some fresh air.

[Kyraishi]

So the OP thinks that we should just leave it as it is, do not touch the blockchain and bitcoin mechanics at all, we will figure it our later, or it will solve by its own?

Guess what, it is not going to look like that. If we are already having such a problems with extremely big fees and when the blockchain is lagging as hell because we cannot even get confirmations quickly ( unless you put extra-ordinary fee ), then try to imagine what is going to happen with bitcoin in 5 years, when the amount of people using it will dramatically increase?

That's right, nobody will use bitcoin. What is the point in using cryptocurrency that is not useful for money transfers, because you have to wait for hours to get it confirmed, plus you need to pay few $ fee?
There is no point in such a thing, people would just switch on some altcoins to not mess with that dirt.

[franky1]

I rarely read Reddit.

So you're cool if Rog was to hijack bitcoin.com to push BTU?
That's symbolic of the actions of a decent human being to you?

by you using terms lik BTU shows you have already swallowed the reddit narrative. because your using their buzzwords. so you have already failed the pretence that you havnt been suckered into the reddit rhetoric.

secondly bitcoin is a diverse network of many independent implementations.

you should be more worried about the TIER network that core desire

the other non-core implementations know what a peer network is and what a tier network is not. and so if all the dynamic implementations activated there wont be a BTU.. because they only activate with real consensus.

if you think its a roger vs the world or a china +roger vs .. then please actually stop reading the reddit scripts and do some proper research

[gmaxwell]

when the blockchain is lagging as hell because we cannot even get confirmations quickly ( unless you put extra-ordinary fee ) [...]
That's right, nobody will use bitcoin.

The only way that the fees will be "high as hell" is if people are using Bitcoin very heavily and highly valuing the transactions they make.

[franky1]

The only way that the fees will be "high as hell" is if people are using Bitcoin very heavily and highly valuing the transactions they make.

lol
you removed the priority fee
you removed the reactive pricing and replaced it with average pricing
you included the larger relay min fee

you are the one pressuring the fee's to rise even if demand was low

dont start blaming users.

but then again you bypassed node consensus. by only giving pools the vote and then went on a rant blaming pools

do you even listen to the community. or just echo chamber your own thoughts

[Vorth]

You must be smoking too much of that killer pot leaf. If miners allow limitless space, then there will be no fee market. The fees in each block will be small. What incentive would miners have to mine blocks with no reward and low fees? Total hash power would drop preciptuously and network security would vanish.

[franky1]

You must be smoking too much of that killer pot leaf. If miners allow limitless space, then there will be no fee market. The fees in each block will be small. What incentive would miners have to mine blocks with no reward and low fees? Total hash power would drop preciptuously and network security would vanish.

no reward = 120 years time
also pools wont jump to "gigabytes by midnight"

they will find a natural growth level that nodes accept and allows transactions in

[AngryDwarf]

You must be smoking too much of that killer pot leaf. If miners allow limitless space, then there will be no fee market. The fees in each block will be small. What incentive would miners have to mine blocks with no reward and low fees? Total hash power would drop preciptuously and network security would vanish.

Consider what happened before the 1MB cap was hit. Miners would make consensus moves on the size of the blocks that they created. From 250kB, to 500kB, to 750kB to 1MB to we cannot go any further now.

Miners have always been the ones to decide on the block size, and they have always done this in a coordinated fashion. This is a natural consequence of the rather elegant (economic) design of Bitcoin.

    Miners earn more fee-based income when they produce bigger blocks.
    Miners take more risk of their blocks being orphaned with bigger blocks.
    Miners want to avoid emptying the memory pool every block as that removes a total need for users to pay fees.
    Miners want to make sure the mempool does not become backlogged because users that do not see their transactions confirmed will get disappointed and find other means to do payments. Which hurts the price and in effect hurts the miners income.

[jonald_fyookball]

You must be smoking too much of that killer pot leaf. If miners allow limitless space, then there will be no fee market. The fees in each block will be small. What incentive would miners have to mine blocks with no reward and low fees? Total hash power would drop preciptuously and network security would vanish.

Since miners decide what transactions get into a block, it is not accurate to say that limitless space = limitless supply.   In other words, space is not freely available to anyone without a miner's consent.  You are correct that there would be little incentive to mine with low fees but there is nothing preventing a miner from charging high fees.... except other miners charging low fees.  As with any commodity, there can be both price wars that hurt the producers, and on the other hand: collusion which hurts the consumer.  One way or another, goods and services seem to be still available.  Whether the security will be "high enough" based on a natural fee market depends on many things.

Most important: remember that 'no reward' won't happen for another century.  

[nutildah]

if you think its a roger vs the world or a china +roger vs .. then please actually stop reading the reddit scripts and do some proper research

I already told you, I rarely ready Reddit. And when I do its not about BU or BTU or whatever ripoff of bitcoin's name you want to call it. If the hardfork takes places, Roger will have stepped outside of the consensus mechanism. He will no longer be a part of "bitcoin" but "Bitcoin Unlimited." He also owns the bitcoin.com domain. Please explain to me how by changing the content of the site to promote Unlimited he would't severely undermine the legitimacy of bitcoin.