Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 05:15:19 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: SegWit2MB does nothing at all to fix the real problem  (Read 1434 times)
DGulari
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1038


Crypterium-Digital Mobile Cryptobank For Everyone


View Profile
April 01, 2017, 08:35:58 AM
 #1

Now those clever fuckers at Blockstream seem to want to concede somewhat.  However, SegWit with 2MB does NOTHING to get rid of the real problem.  The real problem is a private takeover of the blockchain to support Blockstream's view of the future where they charge you money to use their private 'side chains' to the disadvantage of the network's miners.  This is a wholesale diversion of funds away from network participants into the private pockets of big investors. 


SegWit with 2MB will be marketed as an improvement in capacity.  However, it will only serve to let the boys at Core continue to build toward a private 'off chain' system owned and controlled by Blockstream.

Fuck Core/Blockstream and their SegWit2MB




░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄
░░░░░░▄███████████▄
░░░░▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░▀██▄
░░░██▀░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░▀██
░░██▀░░▄██▀▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
██▀░░██▀░░▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
██▀░░██░░▄██▀▀▀█▄
██░░██░░██▀
██░░▀▀░░██
██░░▄▄░░██
██░░██░░██▄
██▄░░██░░▀██▄▄▄█▀
██▄░░██▄░░▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
░░██▄░░▀██▄▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
░░░██▄░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░▄██
░░░░▀██▄▄░░░░░░░░▄██▀
░░░░░░▀███████████▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀


░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄
░░░░░░▄███████████▄
░░░░▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░▀██▄
░░░██▀░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░▀██
░░██▀░░▄██▀▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
██▀░░██▀░░▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
██▀░░██░░▄██▀▀▀█▄
██░░██░░██▀
██░░▀▀░░██
██░░▄▄░░██
██░░██░░██▄
██▄░░██░░▀██▄▄▄█▀
██▄░░██▄░░▀▀▀▀░░▄▄
░░██▄░░▀██▄▄▄▄▄░░▀▀
░░░██▄░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░▄██
░░░░▀██▄▄░░░░░░░░▄██▀
░░░░░░▀███████████▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀▀

▀  Twitter
▀  Telegram
▀  Facebook
▀  ANN Thread
▀  Whitepaper
▀  Website
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513487719
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513487719

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513487719
Reply with quote  #2

1513487719
Report to moderator
1513487719
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513487719

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513487719
Reply with quote  #2

1513487719
Report to moderator
Xester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 01, 2017, 08:49:05 AM
 #2

Now those clever fuckers at Blockstream seem to want to concede somewhat.  However, SegWit with 2MB does NOTHING to get rid of the real problem.  The real problem is a private takeover of the blockchain to support Blockstream's view of the future where they charge you money to use their private 'side chains' to the disadvantage of the network's miners.  This is a wholesale diversion of funds away from network participants into the private pockets of big investors. 


SegWit with 2MB will be marketed as an improvement in capacity.  However, it will only serve to let the boys at Core continue to build toward a private 'off chain' system owned and controlled by Blockstream.

Fuck Core/Blockstream and their SegWit2MB



That is the big disadvantage of using segwit, we cannot guarantee to decrease the miners fee and other fees perhaps. There are many rumors spreading around such as an increased in the fees much higher than what we are paying now. It sounds discouraging but what we can do we are only holders that hopes when segwit will take over the fees will reduced.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
April 01, 2017, 08:58:30 AM
 #3

new priority fee formulae needs to be introduced that cannot be easily countered by just using more btc VALUE as your change back to yourself per tx like the old formulae did..

soo..
so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae which was more about the value of the tx

where if they want to spend more then once a day, then obviously things like LN would be of benefit


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Conasse
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52


View Profile
April 01, 2017, 12:09:35 PM
 #4

SegWit has no chance to be activated (it does only 5% of incompatible blocks to activate while the camp Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic is very strongly opposed and mine already 40% of the blocks). Second, SegWit introduces a step backward it multiplies the size of blocks by 4 for only double the throughput of transactions-chain. It creates greater centralisation because being rich allow to create a hub of major transaction (more on deposits, more you can have links). This will make banks, exchanges and States the new masters of the money
ImHash
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
April 01, 2017, 01:57:02 PM
 #5

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 01, 2017, 03:23:14 PM
 #6

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

Quote
to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.
- Jeff Garzik

Quote
implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pair’s flexcap proposal.
- Olivier Janssens

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
April 01, 2017, 03:49:36 PM
 #7

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

pool can only make something the nodes will accept..

it might help if you understood dynamics... so here goes

imagine a case where there were 2 limits.(4 overal 2 for nodes 2 for pools)
hard technical limit that everyone agree's on. and below that a preference limit (adjustable to demand of dynamics).

now imagine
we call the hard technical limit (like old consensus.h) that only moves when the NETWORK as a whole has done speed tests to say what is technically possible and come to a consensus.
EG 8mb has been seen as acceptable today by all speed tests.
the entire network agrees to stay below this, pools and nodes
as a safety measure its split up as 4mb for next 2 years then 8mb 2 years after that..

thus allowing for upto 2-4 years to tweak and make things leaner and more efficient and allow time for real world tech to enhance.
(fibre obtic internet adoption and 5G mobile internet) before stepping forward the consensus.h again



then the preferential limit(further safety measure) that is adjustable and dynamic (policy.h) and keeps pools and nodes inline in a more fluid temporary adjustable agreement. to stop things moving too fast. but fluid if demand occurs

now then, nodes can flag the policy.h whereby if the majority of nodes preferences are at 2mb. pools consensus.h only goes to 1.999
however if under 5-25% of nodes are at 2mb and over 75% of nodes are above 2mb. then POOLS can decide on the orphan risk of raising their pools consensus.h above 2mb but below the majority node policy

also note: pools actual block making is below their(pools) consensus.h

lets make it easier to imagine.. with a picture

black line.. consensus.h. whole network RULE. changed by speed tests and real world tech / internet growth over time (the ultimate consensus)
red line.. node policy.h. node dynamic preference agreement. changed by dynamics or personal preference
purple line.. pools consensus.H. below network RULE. but affected by mempool demand vs nodes overall preference policy.h vs (orphan)risk
orange line.. pools policy.h below pools consensus.h


so imagine
2010
32mb too much, lets go for 1mb
2015
pools are moving thier limit up from 0.75mb to 0.999mb
mid 2017
everyone agree's 2 years of 4mb network capability (then 2 years of 8mb network capability)
everyone agree's to 2mb preference
pools agree their max capability will be below everyones network capability but steps up due to demand and node preference MAJORITY
pools preference(actual blocks built). below other limits but can affect the node minority to shift(EB)
mid 2019
everyone agree's 2 years of 8mb network capability then 2 years of 16mb network capability
some move preference to 4mb, some move under 3mb some dont move
late 2019
MINORITY of nodes have their preference shifted by dynamics of (EB)
2020
MINORITY nodes manually change their preference to not be controlled by dynamics of (EB)
late 2020
MINORITY of nodes have their preference shifted by dynamics of (EB)
2021
MINORITY nodes manually change their preference to not be controlled by dynamics of (EB)
mid 2021
a decision is made whereby nodes preference and pools preference are safe to control blocks at X% scaling per difficulty adjustment period
pools preference(actual blocks built). below other limits but can shift the MINORITY nodes preference via (EB) should they lag behind

p.s
its just a brainfart. no point knit picking the numbers or dates. just read the concept. i even made a picture to keep peoples attention span entertained.

and remember all of these 'dynamic' fluid agreements are all extra safety limits BELOW the black network consensus limit


I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
Ayers
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
April 01, 2017, 03:53:35 PM
 #8

new priority fee formulae needs to be introduced that cannot be easily countered by just using more btc VALUE as your change back to yourself per tx like the old formulae did..

soo..
so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae which was more about the value of the tx

where if they want to spend more then once a day, then obviously things like LN would be of benefit


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price

this is looking good and all, but it's even feasible, no other dev talk about this possibility, did you test it in testnet? and it work? also this remind me of the solution for the longest chain in case of a 51% attack, and the logest chain should not be the one that count as the longest
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890



View Profile
April 01, 2017, 03:58:06 PM
 #9

this is looking good and all, but it's even feasible, no other dev talk about this possibility, did you test it in testnet? and it work? also this remind me of the solution for the longest chain in case of a 51% attack, and the logest chain should not be the one that count longest

?? your quoting about transaction FEE's but responding about longest chains??

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 08:56:59 PM
 #10

The real problem is a private takeover of the blockchain to support Blockstream's view of the future where they charge you money to use their private 'side chains' to the disadvantage of the network's miners.  This is a wholesale diversion of funds away from network participants into the private pockets of big investors.  

Incorrect. Nobody can force you to use their "private sidechains".

There are a LOT of 2nd layer proposals, not only the centralized ones. I'm also against centralized sidechains and a centralized LN. But the possibilities of 2nd layers go far beyond that. Read, for example, the "Drivechain" proposal - it would give the additional income to miners. The same is true for "extension blocks" (a form of "sharding" where a second type of blocks is introduced that must not be processed by all nodes/miners). Only problem is that there is an opcode missing.

For me, 2 MB with segwit is enough for now - it would be a maximal 8 MB (base + weight) block size. Realistically, it would be a 3x to 4x increase of the actual capacity - and that would be enough for the coming 3-4 years.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
andrew24p
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 08:58:46 PM
 #11

Now those clever fuckers at Blockstream seem to want to concede somewhat.  However, SegWit with 2MB does NOTHING to get rid of the real problem.  The real problem is a private takeover of the blockchain to support Blockstream's view of the future where they charge you money to use their private 'side chains' to the disadvantage of the network's miners.  This is a wholesale diversion of funds away from network participants into the private pockets of big investors. 


SegWit with 2MB will be marketed as an improvement in capacity.  However, it will only serve to let the boys at Core continue to build toward a private 'off chain' system owned and controlled by Blockstream.

Fuck Core/Blockstream and their SegWit2MB



Get out of here with your crazy theories. If you re so worried just FORK ALREADY.

█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
█                                                                                                                         █
█                                                                                                                         █
█          ██     ██       ▄█▄        ██        ██     ▄██████▄    ██████████    ████████    ██████▄                      █
█          ██     ██       ███        ██        ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██      ██ ██       ███      ███     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██     ▄██ ██▄      ████    ████     ██              ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          █████████     ██   ██      ██ ██  ██ ██      ▀█████▄        ██        ███████     ██   ▄█▀                     █
█          ██     ██     ██   ██      ██  █▄▄█  ██            ██       ██        ██          █████                        █
█          ██     ██    ▄███████▄     ██  ████  ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██   ██                      █
█          ██     ██    ██     ██     ██   ██   ██     ██     ██       ██        ██          ██    ██                     █
█          ██     ██    ██     ██     ██   ██   ██     ▀██████▀        ██        ████████    ██     ██                    █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
M   A   R   K   E   T   P   L  A   C   E  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█

                     The first token offering total buyback
─────❯❯❯ICO Starts : 28th of November 2017❮❮❮─────

❖TWITTER
❖TELEGRAM
❖WHITEPAPER
❖FACEBOOK
❖ANN THREAD
SLACK
Qartada
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


BlockWake.com Bitcoin Doubler


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2017, 09:35:05 PM
 #12

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?
If you're talking about Antpool, it's more like 15% than 50%.  Not even close.  Giant pools supporting BU do show what BU would actually do though.

arklan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526



View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:31:00 PM
 #13

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

Quote
to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.
- Jeff Garzik

Quote
implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pair’s flexcap proposal.
- Olivier Janssens

yup. should have been done that way from day -1. never should have released the software without it. now we'll never even get the consensus needed to implement this, because it would still be a fork.
Yakamoto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
April 04, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
 #14

This is something I've been saying and worried about, while Segwit looks like it is becoming the only option for really changing the blocksize due to some of the plans BU has in mind, they also aren't doing well in their own way and it just holes up more power for those that design the system. I have said we need more devs coming forward with their own solutions. The question becomes whether or not we'll see any of those.














 

 

█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
BitBlender 

 













 















 












 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
█ 
ImHash
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 12:22:12 AM
 #15

What is changed in BU software besides removing the block size limit? how could someone attack BU nodes and not Core nodes while the Core rules were in place and obeyed? that shows BU software is something different than what it should be, they've tailored the code to their liking, made it seem exclusive aka closed source.

Anyways as long as the majority (nodes/miners/pools) agrees on any change ( consensus) we should follow the majority as minority always doomed.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 01:30:23 AM
 #16

So BU is the answer? where only a big mining farm owning almost half the hash power wants to increase the block size as long as there are transactions in the mempool, but would they just and only change the blocksize without changing anything else?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the miners in charge, but it shouldn't be developers either.

Quote
to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.
- Jeff Garzik

Quote
implement a permanent block size solution once and for all, that will keep the block size limit above market demand. There are several options, such as Stephen Pair’s flexcap proposal.
- Olivier Janssens

yup. should have been done that way from day -1. never should have released the software without it. now we'll never even get the consensus needed to implement this, because it would still be a fork.

Honestly I feel this "HF are bad" stuff is propaganda.  Other cryptos have done hard forks where everyone agrees and knows whats going on and there hasn't been any fall out afaik....

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


★Jetwin.com★


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 01:52:15 AM
 #17

Now those clever fuckers at Blockstream seem to want to concede somewhat.  However, SegWit with 2MB does NOTHING to get rid of the real problem.  The real problem is a private takeover of the blockchain to support Blockstream's view of the future where they charge you money to use their private 'side chains' to the disadvantage of the network's miners.  This is a wholesale diversion of funds away from network participants into the private pockets of big investors. 


SegWit with 2MB will be marketed as an improvement in capacity.  However, it will only serve to let the boys at Core continue to build toward a private 'off chain' system owned and controlled by Blockstream.

Fuck Core/Blockstream and their SegWit2MB



But who do you propose take over as the stewards of the Bitcoin network? I hope it is not Roger Ver and his cohorts at Bitcoin Unlimited. I would prefer to keep the status quo than let incompetent developers take over that might hurt the stability and security of the protocol.

It is good that you are expressing the truth now. This is not an argument about block sizes but a movement to take the Core developers out and let the BU developers take over.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄▄███▀▀▀ ▄  ▄ ▀▀▀███▄▄
▄██▀▀ ▄▄████  ████▄▄ ▀▀██▄
▄██▀ ▄███████    ███████▄ ▀██▄
██▀ ▄████████▀    ▀████████▄ ▀██
██▀ ██████████      ██████████ ▀██
██▀ ██████████        ██████████ ▀██
▄██                                ██▄
██ ▄                              ▄ ██
██ ███▄                        ▄███ ██
██ ██████▄                  ▄██████ ██
██ ▀████████              ████████▀ ██
▀██ ███████                ███████ ██▀
██▄ █████▀                ▀█████ ▄██
██▄ ████        ▄▄        ████ ▄██
██▄ ▀█      ▄▄████▄▄      █▀ ▄██
██▄    ▄▄██████████▄▄    ▄██▀
▀██▄▄ ▀▀██████████▀▀ ▄▄██▀
▀▀███▄▄▄ ▀▀▀▀ ▄▄▄███▀▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
 

    [    ]
Sadlife
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


Why so serious?


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 02:03:54 AM
 #18

So BU has a buggy code  and Segwit is just a power grab owned by cores ?
I guess nothing will be implemented this year again and many years to come.
Cause they're many speculation and conspiracy theories about Segwit without hearing their side first. This is like an endless loop of debate.






▄▄▄▄              ▄▄                                                              ▄▄▄▄
████             ████                                                             ████
████              ▀▀      ████                         ████                       ████
████  ▄▄▄▄▄      ▄▄▄▄   ▄▄████▄▄▄▄▄      ▄▄▄▄▄       ▄▄████▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      ████
█████████████    ████   ███████████   ▄████▀████▄    ███████████  ▐██████████▄    ████
████     ▀████   ████     ████      ▄████▀   █████▄    ████        ▀▀    ▀████    ████
████      ████   ████     ████      ███▀    ▀██████    ████         ▄▄▄▄▄▄████    ████
████      ████   ████     ████      ████▄██▄  ▀████    ████       ████████████    ████
████     ▄████   ████     ████▄     ▀████████▄  ██▀    ████▄     ▐███▌    ▐███    ████   
████████████▀    ████     ▀███████▌   ▀█████████▀      ▀███████▌  ████████████    ▀█████▌
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀           ▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀      ▀▀▀▀     ▀▀   





















Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1166



View Profile
April 05, 2017, 02:30:32 AM
 #19

Bitcoin cannot go mainstream with only bigger blocks, this shoud be basic knowlegde by now.

I want to see Bitcoin beeing used by many as possible in many possible ways. All those side-chains are beeing build around Segwit for obvious reasons. LN is not the only off-chain project out there, even if someone doesn't like it he isn't forced to use it. Segwit isn't perfect but it is the best possible update Bitcoin can have.

BU is just a cheap rip-off/ hostile take over, Jihans and Rogers business model is more focused on a lame HF which is not needed.


Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


★Jetwin.com★


View Profile
April 05, 2017, 02:40:23 AM
 #20

So BU has a buggy code  and Segwit is just a power grab owned by cores ?
I guess nothing will be implemented this year again and many years to come.
Cause they're many speculation and conspiracy theories about Segwit without hearing their side first. This is like an endless loop of debate.

Please do your research before making posts about any issue in Bitcoin. It is very unfair that many of you make clueless comments while some of us have tirelessly made the research and still keep making the research about what is happening in the Bitcoin.

I want ask you, what power grab? The miners have the final say if Segwit will activate or not and the Core developers are the accepted stewards of the network right now.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄▄███▀▀▀ ▄  ▄ ▀▀▀███▄▄
▄██▀▀ ▄▄████  ████▄▄ ▀▀██▄
▄██▀ ▄███████    ███████▄ ▀██▄
██▀ ▄████████▀    ▀████████▄ ▀██
██▀ ██████████      ██████████ ▀██
██▀ ██████████        ██████████ ▀██
▄██                                ██▄
██ ▄                              ▄ ██
██ ███▄                        ▄███ ██
██ ██████▄                  ▄██████ ██
██ ▀████████              ████████▀ ██
▀██ ███████                ███████ ██▀
██▄ █████▀                ▀█████ ▄██
██▄ ████        ▄▄        ████ ▄██
██▄ ▀█      ▄▄████▄▄      █▀ ▄██
██▄    ▄▄██████████▄▄    ▄██▀
▀██▄▄ ▀▀██████████▀▀ ▄▄██▀
▀▀███▄▄▄ ▀▀▀▀ ▄▄▄███▀▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
 

    [    ]
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!