Yep.. BU absolutely definitely possibly maybe ready for prime time..

[chek2fire]

give this facepalm to your beloved boy Roger Ver. He claims that bitcoin is an everyday coffee payment system. I personal see bitcoin as it is. A decentralised payment system to store value and to transfer value around the world without the needing of the banking system.

get passed the reddit scripts.

you will find that many are ok with LN as a side service. such as xapo is. such as coinbase, changetip, and shapeshift is.
for the faucet, day trader, gamblers..
but not as a REQUIRED service for all

pools dont give a crap about LN, neither do the other implementations. its reddit scripters insinuating what pools and other implementations want.

again LN as a voluntary side service is acceptable.. but NOT by pushing the fee's up by holding the blocklimit hostage with false promises and removing the reactive fee's to force everyone into permissioned commercial hub services

and i think is clear that you are the one here that has obsessions. I only follow the tech facts and believe to the best tech proposal. I have not change to this. I only want my value to bitcoin to be safe and usable in long term.

[franky1]

and then if anyone agree that micropayments can solved from LN what we need a block size increase? As i say even if bitcoin price double bitcoin is again very cheap,. 1-2$ for fees to transfer money is ridiculous cheap.

1. onchain fee's of $1-$2 .. your thinking about corporate america.. come on look beyond your window.. $1-$2=>20 labour hours in multiple countries
think about the unbanked!!

2. LN has limitations. Eg lets say you just want to deposit $60 for microtransactions.. to open-close = $2-$4 = 3-6% (ps even the LN architects are suggesting only using $60 amounts due to a few risks that LN has (blackmail, chargebacks, address reuse attack)

3. LN although can be open for a year. think real worls usage. can you predict how much you would need to spend each day, beyond say 2 weeks..(ps even the LN architects are suggesting only using $60 amounts, for a 2 weekish lock-in due to a few risks that LN has (blackmail, chargebacks, address reuse attack)

so knowing people are only using it on average for just some of thier funds (not whole hoard) and for a couple weeks (not eternity) then you start to realise that even though xapo, coinbase, changetip all have internal offchain 'swapping' .. onchain capacity still needs to grow to cope with the depositing and withdrawing and also the 'larger spends'

please note that saying people should lock their entire hoard into a channel for eternity shows that your not looking at the reality, risks and limitations but trying to create a utopian and false hope narative.

onchain scaling needs to grow because LN will just help services like shapeshift/xapo.. but those peopl paying rent or travel or fortnigtly groceries will still be onchain and fighting for room alongside all the LN channel open-closing.

[chek2fire]

and then if anyone agree that micropayments can solved from LN what we need a block size increase? As i say even if bitcoin price double bitcoin is again very cheap,. 1-2$ for fees to transfer money is ridiculous cheap.

1. onchain fee's of $1-$2 .. your thinking about corporate america.. come on look beyond your window.. $1-$2=>20 labour hours in multiple countries
think about the unbanked!!

2. LN has limitations. Eg lets say you just want to deposit $60 for microtransactions.. to open-close = $2-$4 = 3-6% (ps even the LN architects are suggesting only using $60 amounts due to a few risks that LN has (blackmail, chargebacks, address reuse attack)

3. LN although can be open for a year. think real worls usage. can you predict how much you would need to spend each day, beyond say 2 weeks..(ps even the LN architects are suggesting only using $60 amounts, for a 2 weekish lock-in due to a few risks that LN has (blackmail, chargebacks, address reuse attack)

so knowing people are only using it on average for just some of thier funds (not whole hoard) and for a couple weeks (not eternity) then you start to realise that even though xapo, coinbase, changetip all have internal offchain 'swapping' .. onchain capacity still needs to grow to cope with the depositing and withdrawing and also the 'larger spends'

please note that saying people should lock their entire hoard into a channel for eternity shows that your not looking at the reality, risks and limitations but trying to create a utopian and false hope narative.

onchain scaling needs to grow because LN will just help services like shapeshift/xapo.. but those peopl paying rent or travel or fortnigtly groceries will still be onchain and fighting for room alongside all the LN channel open-closing.

you still talk crap and you dont know nothing about it. USA is not the center of the world.

[franky1]

so you showed the swiss franc..

have you totally forgot about the unbanked world of third world countries.

[Lauda]

so you showed the swiss franc..

have you totally forgot about the unbanked world of third world countries.

Bitcoin is not a charity. If you want to help people in need, join Caritas or something.

[franky1]

Bitcoin is not a charity. If you want to help people in need, join Caritas or something.

corporate lauda.. may your comments show your corporate adoring mindset.

can you even tell me why bitcoin was invented based on the comments in the genesis block
or are you too deep in the corporate backside.. that all you can see is your own greed and the inner workings of gmax

there is no reason at all that in the next few years to push fees up so high.

in a few decades when pools need it. the onchain capacity should have naturally grown (not at GB by midnight) at a natural progressive node capable rate that even users paying just 10cents would combine to give enough funds to pools

[Lauda]

corporate lauda.. may your comments show your corporate adoring mindset.

Whether I favor corporations or not is entirely irrelevant.

can you even tell me why bitcoin was invented based on the comments in the genesis block

Which "comments" are your referring to? Please quote and provide a source.

that all you can see is your own greed and the inner workings of gmax

It looks like Maxwell is part of some of your weird fantasies, as I have not mentioned him at all.

there is no reason at all that in the next few years to push fees up so high.

Spammers can, and already have, influenced the fee market. This is not going to change.

in a few decades when pools need it. the onchain capacity should have naturally grown (not at GB by midnight) at a natural progressive node capable rate that even users paying just 10cents would combine to give enough funds to pools

In a few decades.. speculation.

[franky1]

can you even tell me why bitcoin was invented based on the comments in the genesis block

Which "comments" are your referring to? Please quote and provide a source.

the genesis block. can you not even find it?

[franky1]

there is no reason at all that in the next few years to push fees up so high.

Spammers can, and already have, influenced the fee market. This is not going to change.

and spammer can be dealt with by adding a new priority fee forumale that hurts spammers and rewards those that dont spam

[Lauda]

the genesis block. can you not even find it?

I want you to show that you can do basic research, provide the proper sources and properly quote the relevant information.

and spammer can be dealt with by adding a new priority fee forumale that hurts spammers and rewards those that dont spam

Who are you to decide what is or what isn't spam based on some "formula"?

[franky1]

and spammer can be dealt with by adding a new priority fee forumale that hurts spammers and rewards those that dont spam

Who are you to decide what is or what isn't spam based on some "formula"?

well if people want to fill every block by spending 144 times a day and they are not doing lean tx's then they should pay more.

EG not just a pay per byte, but a pay per lack of many confirms.
EG you pay 144 times more if you want to spend every block, compared to someone who only spends once a day.

the benefit is then if its not spam but a service that needs to send every block. they then move over to LN and save lots of fees

that way users that only spend once a day are not paying the price

here is one example - not perfect. but think about it
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. (reasonable expectation)
where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise..

which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding/day trading every 1-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing 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.(thats what CLTV does)

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


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 ($0.01).
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)

note this is not perfect. but think about it

[leopard2]

LN is NOT, repeat NOT a scaling solution. It is a nice-to-have thingy to make micropayments, so people do not have to resort to DOGE or LTC to pay for coffee.

Like a corporate gift card from Starbucks or whatever...

We still need a real scaling solution and bigger blocks. LTC's Charlie Lee has promised it, for BTC a promise is not enough. It must be in the code.

I suggest locking BU devs and Core devs into a bunker and not let them out until a satisfactory compromise has been created  

[franky1]

I suggest locking BU devs and Core devs into a bunker and not let them out until a satisfactory compromise has been created  

that was tried late 2015, and early 2016..
but blockstream(core) wanted to be the one holding the whip and wanted everyone else to wear a gimp mask

[chek2fire]

LN is NOT, repeat NOT a scaling solution. It is a nice-to-have thingy to make micropayments, so people do not have to resort to DOGE or LTC to pay for coffee.

Like a corporate gift card from Starbucks or whatever...

We still need a real scaling solution and bigger blocks. LTC's Charlie Lee has promised it, for BTC a promise is not enough. It must be in the code.

I suggest locking BU devs and Core devs into a bunker and not let them out until a satisfactory compromise has been created  

BU has developers?

[-ck]

BU has developers?

No, just politicians and lobbyists.

[DoomDumas]

https://sputniknews.com/radio_double_down/201704251052968537-great-block-size-war-2017/

I like Max Keiser, and this radio show with Charlie Shrem is very instructive, nicely resumed.  I agree with him. 

[felipehermanns]

How many days till the next BUg crash? I bet will be around 10 - 20 may 17.

[Sadlife]

With this node crash BU supporters should have woken up
they should now realize that they shouldn't their million to some idiot programmers who produces bad software.
They should have trust their money to more experience coders and has maintaining the welfare of bitcoin for a long time.

[Lauda]

well if people want to fill every block by spending 144 times a day and they are not doing lean tx's then they should pay more.

EG not just a pay per byte, but a pay per lack of many confirms.
EG you pay 144 times more if you want to spend every block, compared to someone who only spends once a day.

the benefit is then if its not spam but a service that needs to send every block. they then move over to LN and save lots of fees

that way users that only spend once a day are not paying the price

So if I'm a genuine user who uses Bitcoin a lot per day, I will be classified as a spammer and will have to pay the price? Awesome idea.

With this node crash BU supporters should have woken up
they should now realize that they shouldn't their million to some idiot programmers who produces bad software.
They should have trust their money to more experience coders and has maintaining the welfare of bitcoin for a long time.

It takes a normal and rational person who is not delusional (and obviously not paid) to realize that they're wrong. It takes a big person to admit being wrong and changing your opinion (this happens with pretty much every belief, e.g. vaccines == autism; flat Earth). BTU is pretty much identical to those.

[franky1]

well if people want to fill every block by spending 144 times a day and they are not doing lean tx's then they should pay more.

EG not just a pay per byte, but a pay per lack of many confirms.
EG you pay 144 times more if you want to spend every block, compared to someone who only spends once a day.

the benefit is then if its not spam but a service that needs to send every block. they then move over to LN and save lots of fees

that way users that only spend once a day are not paying the price

So if I'm a genuine user who uses Bitcoin a lot per day, I will be classified as a spammer and will have to pay the price? Awesome idea.

you would use LN to pay small amounts randomly multiple times a day..
or
you would decide that your sig campaign management should adapt in daily batches to cut costs onchain instead of many times a day.

oh here is the kicker.. that should really wake you up to the fee debate of the last year..
whats wrong with paying $60 fee.. thats only 8 hours minimum wage labour in UK/america??
spoiler
[now you may emotionally understand third world countries where for the last year you and others have said 40c (8hour labour) is ok]
highlight text inside brackets to reveal

With this node crash BU supporters should have woken up
they should now realize that they shouldn't their million to some idiot programmers who produces bad software.
They should have trust their money to more experience coders and has maintaining the welfare of bitcoin for a long time.

It takes a normal and rational person who is not delusional (and obviously not paid) to realize that they're wrong. It takes a big person to admit being wrong and changing your opinion (this happens with pretty much every belief, e.g. vaccines == autism; flat Earth). BTU is pretty much identical to those.

oh lauda you need to read your own words then. thats why MANY implementations of diversity offsets the "too big to fail" mentality.
your stuck in the 'its us or them' corporate takeover mindset..
wake up and think many diverse people as a community all with their own brand preference which unite on certain rules , that way EG if your a mcdonalds guy, someone else was a KFC guy.. it wont matter if mcdonalds or KFC stopped serving.. peopl wouldnt starve because theres loads of restuarants of different brands available in the same town(network) that agree to the fundemental rules of feeding people

i know you wanna scream blue murder that mcdonalds should be the only fast food restaurant because they also serve chicken based meals. but your not thinking beyond the burger/chicken debate