Andreas redpills /r/btc loons

[BillyBobZorton]

The fact that this reached a point so ridiculous that Andreas Antonopoulos had to say things the way they are should tell you how far the /r/btc loons took this.

The fact that loons/paid shills will deny those facts claiming Andreas is now part of the cult beucase what he says doesn't meet their agenda further proves the point

[1715159697]

1715159697

[1715159697]

1715159697

[1715159697]

1715159697

[Lauda]

He isn't wrong though. Even if every single developer was brought up by some malicious individuals right now, it wouldn't make a difference. The developers can not force any change on the network. An ASIC monopoly on the other hand, as mentioned, is quite dangerous. BITMAIN could for example refuse to sell devices to individuals who don't support them in something. Essentially you could get a "it's my way or the high way" type of mining monopoly. However, I'm sure if there was reasonable evidence for this to be happening then the whole ecosystem would fight this *disease*.
A simple tl;dr can be made out of r/btc: censorship, theymos, maxwell, *insert anyone who doesn't agree with their view* character attacks, blockstream, AXA, *random and unsafe number* block size, Blockstream Core. It is really a very bad place to read up on Bitcoin and almost always a waste of time.

[Kprawn]

/r/btc has become just as poisonous as /r/Bitcoin and all the other forums where Bitcoin is being discussed these days. Most of these forums are

infiltrated by paid shills from both side. I think Andreas is just as fed up with this whole situation as anyone else that frequent these platforms.

I feel sorry for the newbies that enter these poisonous grounds. 

[Carlton Banks]

Andreas isn't saying anything different ro the argements made on this forum, though


These arguments aren't "special" because "special" Andreas Antonopoolos makes them, they stand on they're own (not unlike Andreas' own comment that "Segwit is good tech regardless of who wrote it", ironically)


Be careful with these "thought leaders", because the more we increase their status, the more danger there is that people will blindly follow people like Andreas when he's suggesting something that's bad for Bitcoin (which he's never done, yet)

[jonald_fyookball]

pretty sad how Andreas used to be so passionate about helping the worlds' unbanked with low fees...and talking about permissionless innovation...

...now shilling for Blockstream/Core , supporting their high fees and permissioned second layers.

[The One]

He isn't a god.

Is this suppose to make those who disagree with Segwit and/or LN fall in line?

[BillyBobZorton]

pretty sad how Andreas used to be so passionate about helping the worlds' unbanked with low fees...and talking about permissionless innovation...

...now shilling for Blockstream/Core , supporting their high fees and permissioned second layers.

How can you cater for mainstream global transactions on-chain while calling it permissionless? If poor africans can use fast, cheap transactions on-chain, it means the blockchain is insanely big, which means you are asking permission for the centralized corporations running the nodes (basically the same centralized corporations running minning now) to validate your transaction.

[jonald_fyookball]

pretty sad how Andreas used to be so passionate about helping the worlds' unbanked with low fees...and talking about permissionless innovation...

...now shilling for Blockstream/Core , supporting their high fees and permissioned second layers.

How can you cater for mainstream global transactions on-chain while calling it permissionless? If poor africans can use fast, cheap transactions on-chain, it means the blockchain is insanely big, which means you are asking permission for the centralized corporations running the nodes (basically the same centralized corporations running minning now) to validate your transaction.

You probably won't like any of my answers because you seem to have made up your mind already but here's a try:

1.  I would rather have everyone be able to transact than everyone run a node, this was Satoshi's vision

2.  Non-mining nodes do not fundamentally secure the network, only mining nodes secure and extend the ledger.  As you put it "validate".
  
3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

4. People that are running nodes now with fast interent home speeds can handle much bigger blocks (8-24mb?)   Once tx capacity exceeds
that, Bitcoin will be so big that it will be even more decentralized.

5. most importantly, i never said we need 100% on chain scaling.  I'm for letting the free market decide.  
But the last thing we need to do is say that 1mb is acceptable and 2mb isn't...which is exactly what BS/Core is doing.  

 

[Lauda]

1.  I would rather have everyone be able to transact than everyone run a node, this was Satoshi's vision

Appeal to authority, and wishful thinking. This statement is useless.

2.  Non-mining nodes do not fundamentally secure the network, only mining nodes secure and extend the ledger.  As you put it "validate".

I'm not sure if trolling or just plain stupid. Non-mining nodes do not validate the consensus rules? Nodes are the vital back bone of the whole network.
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small big blocks will make that worse won't help that.

FTFY.

4. People that are running nodes now with fast interent home speeds can handle much bigger blocks (8-24mb?)

Wrong. In reality, such a block size would boot a very decent amount of nodes of the network. Bandwidth is not the only constraint here.

Once tx capacity exceeds that, Bitcoin will be so big that it will be even more decentralized.

Non sequitur.

5. most importantly, i never said we need 100% on chain scaling.  I'm for letting the free market decide.  

Market deciding technological safety limits is basically opening the gates to manipulation and destruction. Every free market ever was heavily manipulated at some point.

But the last thing we need to do is say that 1mb is acceptable and 2mb isn't...which is exactly what BS/Core is doing.  

What you're looking for is: Segwit > big blocks > trashcan > BU.

[franky1]

if bitmain refuses to sell rigs to competitors, then competitors buy something else

if blockstream wanted to change the network they can
look at the DNS seeds

[pixie85]

I agree with him on the Bitmain part. Having a monopoly like that makes the whole system open to bribes and swaying.
We have a system where miners are voting, you are the biggest player with the most hashpower, it's inevitable that you will start receiving offers of money for backing certain projects. The situation with Roger Ver and Antpool comes to mind. I don't think they backed him because they like the idea of BU taking over. It's just business.

[franky1]

I agree with him on the Bitmain part. Having a monopoly like that makes the whole system open to bribes and swaying.

monopoly?
proof of claim.

please dont quote reddit or twitter. show source of real stats.

We have a system where miners are voting,

no.. CORE has an implementation where miners are voting
because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

other implementations rely on real consensus, nodes and pools

also many implementations rely on a PEER network if diverse nodes. segwit relies on everyone not DCG funded to be downstream from the segwit TIER network.

[jonald_fyookball]

because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

ive never understood what you meant by this.  please explain.

[franky1]

because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

ive never understood what you meant by this.  please explain.

instead of using other methods that can activate segwit. core chose only block count.
meaning core chose to only use pools flagging as the activation method.

and now they cry when pools didnt jump onboard before christmas and then not a couple months later so then the drama of blaming pools and saying pools have nukes that can kill the network so the network has to kill the pools

(instead of rationally asking what do pools want code wise that will make them say yes, and then make a plan B that is more community acceptable)

[jonald_fyookball]

because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

ive never understood what you meant by this.  please explain.

instead of using other methods that can activate segwit. core chose only block count.
meaning core chose to only use pools flagging as the activation method.

and now they cry when pools didnt jump onboard before christmas and then not a couple months later so then the drama of blaming pools and saying pools have nukes that can kill the network so the network has to kill the pools

(instead of rationally asking what do pools want code wise that will make them say yes, and then make a plan B that is more community acceptable)

huh?? 

its not like core is going to give anyone a choice on different things,... they have one dish on the menu.  its called segwit.

uasf is kind of like giving nodes the vote ... on that one thing... which is even dumber.

sorry if i dont totally follow you.

[franky1]

huh??  

its not like core is going to give anyone a choice on different things,... they have one dish on the menu.  its called segwit.
uasf is kind of like giving nodes the vote ... on that one thing... which is even dumber.
sorry if i dont totally follow you.

people are screaming that "pools control the vote"...
no. core gave pools the vote.

pools didnt ask to be the only ones to vote
pools did not force core to give them the only voting power.

the problem is that core gave pools the vote. and pools are now saying no,
because not all of them believe segwit is 'as promised' or the right solution.

but core instead of asking pools whats the hold up or what core could do better.
core fanboys are speculating what the hold up is and causing alot of fud and now trying to push UASF. and shouting out threats that pools ned to be killed off with PoW bombs

core should ask the community what does the community want,
and then make a planB. one that is a node first pools second full community uniting event.. instead of push push push until late 2018 with the half gesture segwit as is version.

[jonald_fyookball]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.   

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".


 

[European Central Bank]

How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.

[franky1]

How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.

nah.
quicker to evict the rich guys in the african cities that pushed people into shanty towns in the first place, which resulted in them needing to search for water.
but i think you prefer the fox news version where people strangely just appeard 20 miles from water for no reason. and prefer to live 20 miles "half a day from a water source"..

i bet after years of watching fox news and oxfam adverts you still have not asked "why do they live 20 miles from water" and instead just wnt with the "they need money and half gesture wells to fix the problem

my point is. too many people are not thinking critically. they see a group of people that pretend to be like gods.. and people just follow them. not asking questions.

andreas for instance was kissing segwits ass before april 2016. (yep before devs got together to start actually debugging elements:segwit to then be bitcoin compatible

andrea's has not really even described segwit in detail last year about the requirement of needing people to move funds to segwit keys. nor has he explained that spammers will continue on native keys and continue spamming

just look at the OP screenshot
"even if blockstream could control the devs (they cant)" - lol blockstream ARE THE DEVS. all the other guys are just fanboys and spellcheckers. EG segwit is wrote by Pwuille (blockstream) some edits are done by luke jr and gmaxwell (blockstream, blockstream)

segwit was a altcoin and part of the blockstream project. not something core devs independently thought up all by themselves

who decided to go soft instead of full network consensus lukejr(blockstream)
who is now heading up UASF, samson mow (blockstream)

[Jordan23]

How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.

nah.
quicker to evict the rich guys in the african cities that pushed people into shanty towns in the first place, which resulted in them needing to search for water.
but i think you prefer the fox news version where people strangely just appeard 20 miles from water for no reason. and prefer to live 20 miles "half a day from a water source"..

i bet after years of watching fox news and oxfam adverts you still have not asked "why do they live 20 miles from water" and instead just wnt with the "they need money and half gesture wells to fix the problem

my point is. too many people are not thinking critically. they see a group of people that pretend to be like gods.. and people just follow them. not asking questions.

andreas for instance was kissing segwits ass before april 2016. (yep before devs got together to start actually debugging elements:segwit to then be bitcoin compatible

andrea's has not really even described segwit in detail last year about the requirement of needing people to move funds to segwit keys. nor has he explained that spammers will continue on native keys and continue spamming

just look at the OP screenshot
"even if blockstream could control the devs (they cant)" - lol blockstream ARE THE DEVS. all the other guys are just fanboys and spellcheckers. EG segwit is wrote by Pwuille (blockstream) some edits are done by luke jr and gmaxwell (blockstream, blockstream)

segwit was a altcoin and part of the blockstream project. not something core devs independently thought up all by themselves

who decided to go soft instead of full network consensus lukejr(blockstream)
who is now heading up UASF, samson mow (blockstream)

FOX news! Take your critically thinking advice. Now tell us your reliable news source. Watch the crickets everyone. I agree Fox is trash but all media is. That's critically thinking snowflake. You forgot racist. Andreas wiped you up lol

[btcxyzzz]

More like we're redpilling him.

[Andre_Goldman]

watching his lasted Youtube video ...

Blockchain vs. Bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo

I thought to my self ... such Tech Evangelist ...  

[Lauda]

if bitmain refuses to sell rigs to competitors, then competitors buy something else

What other options are there for standard consumers? Bitmain is already a dangerous monopoly.
 

if blockstream wanted to change the network they can
look at the DNS seeds

Nonsense. Someone responded to it in another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1888573.msg18809626#msg18809626

watching his lasted Youtube video ...

Blockchain vs. Bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo

I thought to my self ... such Tech Evangelist ...  

He's right about most of it though. Most of the coins have bamboozled the people who are just in here due to their own weaknesses, i.e. greed.

[IIOII]

I'm under the impression that the whole /r/btc is a private party room of Roger Ver's paid trolls. It seems to be quite a waste of time trying to educate these shills. They are not accessible to rational argument, because they only care about their fiat/shitcoin paycheck.

Franky1 is one prime example for that type of character.

The right way to deal with these enemies of Bitcoin is to sideline them. They are free to construct their centralized Paypal 3.0, but they are not part of the Bitcoin community.

[BillyBobZorton]

1.  I would rather have everyone be able to transact than everyone run a node, this was Satoshi's vision

But satoshi's vision was "p2p cash" too. How can you call a network that is centralized by monopolies of nodes validating the transactions "p2p cash"?

2.  Non-mining nodes do not fundamentally secure the network, only mining nodes secure and extend the ledger.  As you put it "validate".

How isnt't validating the transactions in a decentralized way vs a corporation validating them a part of the security model?
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

But they do help in keeping them in check by threatening them with UASFs and whatnot. If they full control over nodes too, it would already be game over. Might as well use a bank?

4. People that are running nodes now with fast interent home speeds can handle much bigger blocks (8-24mb?)   Once tx capacity exceeds
that, Bitcoin will be so big that it will be even more decentralized.

Bitcoin is decentralized if people can run nodes at home, if this basic principle is broken then it's not decentralized. People will not be able to run nodes at home to cater for mainstream volume transactions, not now and not in 10 years, the blocksize will be too big for technology to progress at the same time and don't compromise the network.

5. most importantly, i never said we need 100% on chain scaling.  I'm for letting the free market decide.  
But the last thing we need to do is say that 1mb is acceptable and 2mb isn't...which is exactly what BS/Core is doing.  

All Core devs want to eventually raise the blocksize. Market already decided. It's miners that are blocking progress.

[franky1]

if bitmain refuses to sell rigs to competitors, then competitors buy something else

What other options are there for standard consumers? Bitmain is already a dangerous monopoly.
 

i guess i was a little tooo subtle in the other topic... please read it slowly word for word


here ill save you searching for it.. im sure other people will notice the subtle hints

i canaan should mention a few, but ill leave you to ebang your heads against a wall to show your "estimates" and "assessments" claims. also i am not gonna get baited into the loaded questions of useless hardware such as USB devices. so i will just let you get a bitfuryous about me not spoonfeeding you the data, and instead wait for you to show where you lot got your 70% figures from.

too many people are quoting 70% so i want to see your source

hopefully i have not been too subtle

[franky1]

blockstream are the ones that implemented CLTV and CSV to be the paypal-esq features of 3-5 business day funds maturity after withdrawal(cltv after channel close confirm) and chargebacks(csv after channel close confirm)

blockstream want LN as the dominant end goal for bitcoin (multisig channels = permissioned)

please research, and yea that does not mean reading reddit scripts

[jonald_fyookball]

1.  I would rather have everyone be able to transact than everyone run a node, this was Satoshi's vision

But satoshi's vision was "p2p cash" too. How can you call a network that is centralized by monopolies of nodes validating the transactions "p2p cash"?

2.  Non-mining nodes do not fundamentally secure the network, only mining nodes secure and extend the ledger.  As you put it "validate".

How isnt't validating the transactions in a decentralized way vs a corporation validating them a part of the security model?
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

But they do help in keeping them in check by threatening them with UASFs and whatnot. If they full control over nodes too, it would already be game over. Might as well use a bank?

4. People that are running nodes now with fast interent home speeds can handle much bigger blocks (8-24mb?)   Once tx capacity exceeds
that, Bitcoin will be so big that it will be even more decentralized.

Bitcoin is decentralized if people can run nodes at home, if this basic principle is broken then it's not decentralized. People will not be able to run nodes at home to cater for mainstream volume transactions, not now and not in 10 years, the blocksize will be too big for technology to progress at the same time and don't compromise the network.

5. most importantly, i never said we need 100% on chain scaling.  I'm for letting the free market decide.  
But the last thing we need to do is say that 1mb is acceptable and 2mb isn't...which is exactly what BS/Core is doing.  

All Core devs want to eventually raise the blocksize. Market already decided. It's miners that are blocking progress.

1. its not centralized at all.  We have greater pool decentralization than we did a few years ago.  You can say there's
geographic centralization (China) of miners but that's another topic.

2. Not sure what you mean.  As I said , only miners extend and secure the ledger.  SPV clients can validate.
Have you seen this btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1891411.0  This will help decentralization.

3. Small blocks help to keep miners in check?  We don't need to keep miners in check.  Bitcoin already does that.

4. Again, SPV clients with increasingly effective fraud proofs, unless you are mining.

5.  "Eventually".... exactly.  

[BillyBobZorton]

1.  I would rather have everyone be able to transact than everyone run a node, this was Satoshi's vision

But satoshi's vision was "p2p cash" too. How can you call a network that is centralized by monopolies of nodes validating the transactions "p2p cash"?

2.  Non-mining nodes do not fundamentally secure the network, only mining nodes secure and extend the ledger.  As you put it "validate".

How isnt't validating the transactions in a decentralized way vs a corporation validating them a part of the security model?
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

But they do help in keeping them in check by threatening them with UASFs and whatnot. If they full control over nodes too, it would already be game over. Might as well use a bank?

4. People that are running nodes now with fast interent home speeds can handle much bigger blocks (8-24mb?)   Once tx capacity exceeds
that, Bitcoin will be so big that it will be even more decentralized.

Bitcoin is decentralized if people can run nodes at home, if this basic principle is broken then it's not decentralized. People will not be able to run nodes at home to cater for mainstream volume transactions, not now and not in 10 years, the blocksize will be too big for technology to progress at the same time and don't compromise the network.

5. most importantly, i never said we need 100% on chain scaling.  I'm for letting the free market decide.  
But the last thing we need to do is say that 1mb is acceptable and 2mb isn't...which is exactly what BS/Core is doing.  

All Core devs want to eventually raise the blocksize. Market already decided. It's miners that are blocking progress.

1. its not centralized at all.  We have greater pool decentralization than we did a few years ago.  You can say there's
geographic centralization (China) of miners but that's another topic.

2. Not sure what you mean.  As I said , only miners extend and secure the ledger.  SPV clients can validate.
Have you seen this btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1891411.0  This will help decentralization.

3. Small blocks help to keep miners in check?  We don't need to keep miners in check.  Bitcoin already does that.

4. Again, SPV clients with increasingly effective fraud proofs, unless you are mining.

5.  "Eventually".... exactly.  

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

3. Yes, it keeps them in check. Bitcoin does what? bitcoin is just a set of rules, those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do. If miners become tyrannical then users can put them in trouble by selecting what software they run to validate nodes. This is no longer the case with mainstream-tier blocks.

4. Irrelevant, points above.

5. When needed. Segwit would give us time, then we can consider a blocksize increase. It will be needed in order to make LN run properly anyway.

[franky1]

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

[BillyBobZorton]

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

Prove it isn't? Just look at what gear are the big pools using, most people are using bitmain gear, there's no actual competition, they have checkmated the entire mining game.

And there's people want to give miners even more power with the BUcoin idea.

Gladly, economic majority supports segwit and rejects BU. Which is where conservative blocksize will shine in the case of a situation where we go UASF and miners go BU.

It will not be pretty but segwit will win the war eventually.

Meanwhile LTC will shine with no drama.

[franky1]

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

Prove it isn't? Just look at what gear are the big pools using, most people are using bitmain gear, there's no actual competition, they have checkmated the entire mining game.

Gladly, economic majority supports segwit and rejects BU. Which is where conservative blocksize will shine in the case of a situation where we go UASF and miners go BU.

you have no clue. spend less time on reddit. it will help you

here is a hint im sure you could guess where you can find this data (hint: blockreward decoded message)
$Mined by AntPool usa1
$Mined by AntPool usa2
$Mined by AntPool usa3
$Mined by AntPool usa4

there are farms in iceland, georgia, canada, usa and many other places.
the stratums are spread out all over the world

And there's people want to give miners even more power with the BUcoin idea.

sorry but core bypassed node consensus by going soft. and are the only team giving pools sole voting capability.
other implementations are NODE and POOL consensus.. plus they dont need to UASF force anything in, and instead just let the community decide or not.
only core have shouted out killing pools, banning nodes, PoW nuking asics, mandatory flags.. without actually doing a real listen to the community and unite the community.

so i have asked you and your buddies a few times..
what if hearne done exactly line for line decision for decision the same as core. would you support hearnes implementation

[The One]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.   

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

[jonald_fyookball]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.   

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

[The One]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.   

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

No need to ask - freedom of speech, expression, etc. If i don't want my opinion known, then i wouldn't be on here 

Check this if it helps. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887619.msg18814437#msg18814437
Example of "Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others."

[Rakete4]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.   

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

[franky1]

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

1. tier network of core as upstream filters
2. no fixes because even with 99% users moving funds to segwit keys (taking alot of mempool bloat for months). 1% left over of quadratic/bloat spammers can remain with native keys and cause MORE disruption than ever before (16ksigops instead of 4k). thus no 'fix'
3. the 1mb blockspace will be its own cesspit of native spammers making the 'witness/weight' area not be utilised as promoted
4. promises to remove malleation to lower double spend risk of unconfirmed. but then adds RBF and CPFP to increase double spend risk of unconfirmed
5. due to native tx's even malleation is not 'fixed', just has a 'opt-in' tx type for INNOCENT users to use to disarm themselves from making malleated tx's

concise enough?

[jonald_fyookball]

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e

[The One]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.   

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

Never was going too as that wasn't the "question."

[pereira4]

More like we're redpilling him.

Maybe in your delusional mind, but Buggy Unlimited is only losing ground, meanwhile the general public rejects Buggy Unlimited as seen in node counts, big actorsni the game like people running services, exchanges etc, want segwit and reject Buggy Unlimited, and Buggy Unlimited futures are at all time lows.

Another defeat for the trojan horse attempt.

[Emoclaw]

I'm under the impression that the whole /r/btc is a private party room of Roger Ver's paid trolls. It seems to be quite a waste of time trying to educate these shills. They are not accessible to rational argument, because they only care about their fiat/shitcoin paycheck.

Franky1 is one prime example for that type of character.

The right way to deal with these enemies of Bitcoin is to sideline them. They are free to construct their centralized Paypal 3.0, but they are not part of the Bitcoin community.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of /r/btc is now all the people who got banned on /r/Bitcoin for voicing concerns about SegWit/LN, Core and Blockstream.
Many shill for BU simply because of that, and are not open to be reasoned with.

[BillyBobZorton]

I'm under the impression that the whole /r/btc is a private party room of Roger Ver's paid trolls. It seems to be quite a waste of time trying to educate these shills. They are not accessible to rational argument, because they only care about their fiat/shitcoin paycheck.

Franky1 is one prime example for that type of character.

The right way to deal with these enemies of Bitcoin is to sideline them. They are free to construct their centralized Paypal 3.0, but they are not part of the Bitcoin community.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of /r/btc is now all the people who got banned on /r/Bitcoin for voicing concerns about SegWit/LN, Core and Blockstream.
Many shill for BU simply because of that, and are not open to be reasoned with.

There's a lot of people that have deep hatred for theymos because he banned them, and they accuse him of being an evil actor in the community, yet, I haven't seen anyone getting banned for no logical reason. Most people that get banned is due spamming 100's of messages per hour, or spamming links etc. This forum is cool because is very permissive if you are posting in the right section.

The reddit is another story because I barely use it, but I haven't seen clear evidence of theymos being a tyrannical dictator. /r/bitcoin is about satoshi's client mostly, and satoshi didn't want other competing clients himself. Im ok with discussing the other clients but I remember an obvious shilling campaign for other clients while indiscriminately FUDding back in the XT days, and that had to be stopped.

[franky1]

There's a lot of people that have deep hatred for theymos because he banned them, and they accuse him of being an evil actor in the community, yet, I haven't seen anyone getting banned for no logical reason. Most people that get banned is due spamming 100's of messages per hour, or spamming links etc. This forum is cool because is very permissive if you are posting in the right section.

The reddit is another story because I barely use it, but I haven't seen clear evidence of theymos being a tyrannical dictator. /r/bitcoin is about satoshi's client mostly, and satoshi didn't want other competing clients himself. Im ok with discussing the other clients but I remember an obvious shilling campaign for other clients while indiscriminately FUDding back in the XT days, and that had to be stopped.

from all the drama of the last 3 years theymos has been more famous about censoring any chatter thats CORE ngative or non-cor positive,


core was just a brand invented in 2013 from one of the forks that started in 2010 (july 2010 to be precise) its not the original 'satoshi client', even if it pretends to be

yep satoshis original was a sourceforge that continued right until winter 2010.

yet the github was gavins implementation of bitcoin which started summer 2010 meaning the github version was a second implementation. not the single brand of satoshi from (sourceforge).

satoshi continued to work on source forge version right upto december 2010..

Builds:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.19/

where as others used git hub.. and forked their own. aswell (there have been 7993 variants of the github since 2010)

the one that was made by and managed by gavin in 2010 got a rebrand in 2013 and that was the birth of 'core'

the birth was to separate it from being confused with the network protocol.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3203

This has been discussed a lot before, but the following is the proposal by @gavinandresen and I agree:

Bitcoin-Qt -->  btcore (full name 'Bitcoin Core')
bitcoind --> btcored (full name 'Bitcoin Core Daemon')
bitcoin-cli --> btcore-cli (full name 'Bitcoin Core CLI Client')

Bitcoin-the-system has always been abbreviated as 'bc', not 'bt' - wouldn't 'bccore'* make more sense here?

I think it would be better to keep Bitcoin-Qt and bitcoind more distinct. After all, someone may develop another GUI client sharing the same codebase someday as well.

because the 'protocol' became much bigger than one brand/control point

[squatz1]

/r/btc has become just as poisonous as /r/Bitcoin and all the other forums where Bitcoin is being discussed these days. Most of these forums are

infiltrated by paid shills from both side. I think Andreas is just as fed up with this whole situation as anyone else that frequent these platforms.

I feel sorry for the newbies that enter these poisonous grounds. 

I feel bad for the newbies too, but I don't even think most of them know what's going on in the least and don't want to try to learn. It takes a lot to understand what the two scaling solutions are -- gosh let a fucking alone try to go ahead and parse through all the drama here to find out the stuff you need to know.

But yeah, I'll have to full agree with you and say that both sides have pretty much started a mud slinging money guided effort to put them in front.

Though personally, I do think Segwit is the way to go as BTU is just going to put VER and Wu in power which I think isn't the direction in the least for our decentralized bitcoin.

[franky1]

Though personally, I do think Segwit is the way to go as BTU is just going to put VER and Wu in power which I think isn't the direction in the least for our decentralized bitcoin.

shows why you shouldnt read reddit.

your confused with who wants the peer network and who wants the tier network

[jonald_fyookball]

Though personally, I do think Segwit is the way to go as BTU is just going to put VER and Wu in power which I think isn't the direction in the least for our decentralized bitcoin.

shows why you shouldnt read reddit.

your confused with who wants the peer network and who wants the tier network

Franky,  you should explain what you mean by tier network.  I don't think anyone understands.

[buwaytress]

Wow. I just googled some stuff from the posts above me and found out about a "scaling war" that happened in 2015 and something about $1.5m already paid in advance of this forum development.

I didn't dig deeper, because I honestly am not keen on diving into politics, but it would seem that some of this resentment and mud-slinging has its roots in something that started two years ago!

It's a bit sad for a newbie like me reading this ReadMe/FAQ in Sep 2016
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61s75o/rbitcoin_faq_newcomers_please_read/

Then the experience of the last few months reading bct threads.

[classicsucks]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.  

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

I was a Core Fanboi too, look at my username. I'll take the hit to my ego and admit I was lapping up Maxwell's dog drivel.

When Segwit came, I knew I was on the wrong ship. Reading the spec made my eyes burn - I suddenly realized that this was another over-engineered Spruce Goose that would never fly. Watching Core's behavior since then has been instructive. The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

And yes, Andreas is nearly a god. The guy is smart. But he's dead wrong about Segwit.

[FiendCoin]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.  

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

I was a Core Fanboi too, look at my username. I'll take the hit to my ego and admit I was lapping up Maxwell's dog drivel.

When Segwit came, I knew I was on the wrong ship. Reading the spec made my eyes burn - I suddenly realized that this was another over-engineered Spruce Goose that would never fly. Watching Core's behavior since then has been instructive. The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

And yes, Andreas is nearly a god. The guy is smart. But he's dead wrong about Segwit.

Judging by your post history, you're a bought sock-puppet account. You had normal posts up to Nov 16, 2016 and then stopped posting. You didn't post again until Dec 10th 2016 when you made your first Core/SegWit bash post. Since then you been ramping up your Core bashing and BU shilling. My guess is sometime between Nov 16th and Dec 10th you bought this account or Roger Ver did and employed you to bash Core.

[jonald_fyookball]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.  

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

I was a Core Fanboi too, look at my username. I'll take the hit to my ego and admit I was lapping up Maxwell's dog drivel.

When Segwit came, I knew I was on the wrong ship. Reading the spec made my eyes burn - I suddenly realized that this was another over-engineered Spruce Goose that would never fly. Watching Core's behavior since then has been instructive. The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

And yes, Andreas is nearly a god. The guy is smart. But he's dead wrong about Segwit.

Good to know.  Was wondering about your name lol

[Paashaas]

The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

Atleast 80% of the entire Bitcoin market wants Segwit and you think they're all rats?

Welcome on my ignore list, enjoy.

[jonald_fyookball]

The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

Atleast 80% of the entire Bitcoin market wants Segwit and you think they're all rats?

Welcome on my ignore list, enjoy.

its about 35 percent.  poW decides the rules in bitcoin.

[FiendCoin]

The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

Atleast 80% of the entire Bitcoin market wants Segwit and you think they're all rats?

Welcome on my ignore list, enjoy.

its about 35 percent.  poW decides the rules in bitcoin.

If a handful of Chinese miners can dictate the direction of Bitcoin it is DOOMED!

Thankfully, that won't happen. Its only a matter of time now before SegWit makes it way to Bitcoin and we can head to 10k per coin!

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

[jonald_fyookball]

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

[FiendCoin]

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

Seriously? It doesn't matter how many "workers" are in a pool, most pools are controlled by 1 dude and Antpool is controlled by Jihan Wu (1 dude).

I'm glad you think miner centralization is a problem, now you can stop shilling for BU and find another solution or what you say is meaningless.

[franky1]

Franky,  you should explain what you mean by tier network.  I don't think anyone understands.

ever ask yourself why there are no 0.8 or below nodes on the network
and how easy it could be to start making other implementations not have access.
EG anything below 0.13.1 (70014) can find themselves 'lost' in the future

Code:

#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70001
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

simply change to

Code:

#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70014
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

and anything not segwit just wouldnt get a list of nodes from a DNS

and most of the segwit users wont want to manually white list old nodes to offer up a nodes list the other way(addnode).
hence why even the segwit documentations says

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1

The easiest way to prevent this problem is to upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or another full node release that is compatible with the segwit soft fork. If you still don’t wish to upgrade, it is possible to use a newer Bitcoin Core release as a filter for older Bitcoin Core releases.

Filtering by an upgraded node


In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual.
For the older node, first wait for the newer node to finish syncing the blockchain and then restart the older node with the following command line parameter (this may also be placed in the Bitcoin Core configuration file):

yep if you dont want to upgrade. you have to still download a segwit node just to whitelist yourself, to be filtered down data from segwit nodes that ar upstream (a layer above, of a tier network).

which makes me laugh about the whole "everything is fine segwit is backward compatible and no need to upgrade" promises of segwit going soft

i hope this wakes you up to the TIER network of gmaxwells (upstream filter) and (luke JRs bridge node) word twisting of said tier network of control
where blockstream becomes top of the foodchain..

by tier, it means LAYERS. as oppose to a PEER network where the implementations are on the same layer (same level playing field)

[Lauda]

its about 35 percent.  poW decides the rules in bitcoin.

PoW alone does not decide anything. For those that are reading, this is classic delusional shill talk.

If a handful of Chinese miners can dictate the direction of Bitcoin it is DOOMED!

No amount of miners dictate what Bitcoin is or isn't.

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

That is absurd. The number of works != number of miners.

[franky1]

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

firstly pools do not have ultimate control.

its a symbiotic relationship between pools and nodes.

yes pools can collate data in new ways and re-invent a blockstructure, but if the nodes do not accept it. then the blocks get ignored.
even if a pool had 50billion exahash. if the block doesnt propagate and get accepted by nodes. then its just wasting pools time. because all the merchants have trashed that block in 3 seconds.

knowing they cant spend rewards for 100 confirms they wont do funky blocks in the morning unless they know the block would still exist and have 100 confirms (blocks accepted ontop) that are viewable from merchants nodes in the afternoon to be able to spend that mornings block reward.

everyone has already seen that blocks that dont fit the nodes rules get rejected in just 3 seconds. and pools then realise their mistake and the very next block they make are blocks that fit the rules.

every week we see pools making blocks either by mistake or intentionally that dont fit the rules. and within seconds or a couple blocks (rarely) pools learn their lesson and ensure their block fits the rules of the majority of nodes
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

because its not just about the cost of creating a block (electric+time) its also about who has a node that would see their funky block to spend the reward with in 100 blocks+ time.

EG
you might see for instance 80 merchants have a node that would accept it.. but if that pool wants to spend the reward with the 800 other merchant nodes who wont see the block. then there is no point making a block that wont get seen

Seriously? It doesn't matter how many "workers" are in a pool, most pools are controlled by 1 dude and Antpool is controlled by Jihan Wu (1 dude).
I'm glad you think miner centralization is a problem,

location is not much of an issue. you will be surprised that for instance antpool is not located in one location, but dozens.

even pools claimed as being "chinese" are managed by people that are not in china. (slush is managed in thailand) and ontop of this pools have many stratums spread out around the world. so if one stratum is shut down. in 2 seconds the farms are 'pool hopped' to another stratum else where.

lastly thinking that one guy has 70% control of pools is an utter laugh that no one can prove using real statistics. but only unbacked whispers from twitter and reddit.

[franky1]

all this finger pointing to blame xt in 2013, classic in 2014 bu in 2016 and pools in 2017 is just social distractions to avoid people looking at where the real centralisation is happening.

pools and nodes have a symbiotic relationship.
pools 'could' get power if they can hold out and make new formed funky blocks for a many hours or a few days, weeks, months to delay the network syncing to blackmail the community into upgrading their node to a version that pools make, that allows node users to see transactions rather than only seeing rejects/orphans and their node unsynced.
but so far that has only happened once. the 2013 leveldb fork. which made all the nodes move to a new version0.8 and the DNS seed to cut off allowing connections to 0.7 and below(old nodes)
(yes i mention the 2013 event often, because its an actual event that actually occurred. not a 'what if' fud doomsday)

since then pools have been more cautious about doing things that dont get accepted by the majority of nodes because of the drama and risks to pools costs/spendability could occur.

the last time a pool made an obvious out of majority block structure, it got rejected in 3 seconds and the pool didnt push it. they decide to just follow the nodes rules that are/were majority accepted.

every week pools make mistakes that dont follow the rules and find their blocks getting rejected/orphaned. they learn their lesson the hard way, by not winning the node acceptance to get their block added to blockheight.

in short. nodes hold the power.
even if pools could collude where pools are all onside doing funky blocks,.. they still need to survive pushing their blocks for hours/days/weeks to blackmail the unsynced nodes to download new nodes, just to see the funky block as acceptable... but thats alot of effort, and a very costly risk.

for pools to get power is not just about one pool having hashpower. its about having their competition not fighting them to ensure the blocks keep adding on. and then. keeping it going long enough to blackmail the nodes to switch too.


so ultimately its still nodes that hold the power. as long as the nodes dont give in and give up the power so easily.
nodes could simply ban a malicious pool thats causing endless orphans if its not following the rules.

whats more important than worrying about the "what if's" of pools.. is the real network threat of node centralisation.

this is where node diversity is needed. so that we do not have one node dev team that create a version and change the DNS to force the network into following like sheep.

we need to realise that trying to bypass the security mechanisms of consensus (yep orphans are part of security) with these 'going soft approaches' may seem good if the community as a whole want the change. but can be abused by bad actors who may want to trojan horse changes that are not wanted.

wasting 3 years for something that is (now seen as not) backward compatible by going soft. should be a neon red flag that something else should be tried.

not blackmail, not threats of killing off nodes/pools. but instead making something that the community would accept and uniting the community. by doing something properly that uses consensus. to avoid the risks, backdoor tactics and politics and civil war drama

[classicsucks]

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY

[BillyBobZorton]

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY

So what do you want then? Segwit has been proven to be safe on testnet, it has been tested along with LN too but that's another story anyway, let's focus on segwit itself. It's been on testnet for ages, it's been on several alts, not it will be on LTC too.

The next step is to be added on bitcoin, so looks like segwit haters will not become believers until they see it live in bitcoin, but block at the same time. Decide.

[jonald_fyookball]

The next step is to be added on bitcoin, so looks like segwit haters will not become believers until they see it live in bitcoin, but block at the same time. Decide.

It's not that segwit can't "work" or that things will blow up overnight.  Most of the opposition to the core roadmap comes from the belief that they (core) will not
steward the appropriate amount of on-chain scaling.  The "segwit now and we'll see what comes next" approach is looked upon with great suspicion by the miners
and users like myself.

The miners want a blocksize increase with segwit both as a consensus signal for bigger blocks as well as a hard fork approach.

[jonald_fyookball]

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

Seriously? It doesn't matter how many "workers" are in a pool, most pools are controlled by 1 dude and Antpool is controlled by Jihan Wu (1 dude).

I'm glad you think miner centralization is a problem, now you can stop shilling for BU and find another solution or what you say is meaningless.

Blocksize has little to do with miner centralization. 

[Lauda]

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

The amount of volume and number of nodes is entirely irrelevant to this. Segwit has proven itself both on testnet and real world networks. On the other hand, EC has proven itself nowhere.

So what do you want then?

Either such people are paid or they have been drinking a lot of the propaganda kool-aid. I can't possibly explain this otherwise (assuming user is not a troll).

Blocksize has little to do with miner centralization. 

It has everything to do with miner centralization. Another display of faulty knowledge.

[classicsucks]

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY

So what do you want then? Segwit has been proven to be safe on testnet, it has been tested along with LN too but that's another story anyway, let's focus on segwit itself. It's been on testnet for ages, it's been on several alts, not it will be on LTC too.

The next step is to be added on bitcoin, so looks like segwit haters will not become believers until they see it live in bitcoin, but block at the same time. Decide.

Segwit is dead. Even if it were safe I wouldn't run it - it's not a solution for the current problems, its backers are showing more and more sketchy behaviors, and there are too many unknowns. Bury it and move on to the next solution.  How about we  scale bitcoin by increasing the blocksize and quit dicking around with these overcomplicated and pointless code upgrades on altcoins?

[BillyBobZorton]

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell  

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY

So what do you want then? Segwit has been proven to be safe on testnet, it has been tested along with LN too but that's another story anyway, let's focus on segwit itself. It's been on testnet for ages, it's been on several alts, not it will be on LTC too.

The next step is to be added on bitcoin, so looks like segwit haters will not become believers until they see it live in bitcoin, but block at the same time. Decide.

Segwit is dead. Even if it were safe I wouldn't run it - it's not a solution for the current problems, its backers are showing more and more sketchy behaviors, and there are too many unknowns. Bury it and move on to the next solution.  How about we  scale bitcoin by increasing the blocksize and quit dicking around with these overcomplicated and pointless code upgrades on altcoins?

Segwit will shine in LTC along with lightning network and LTC will go to new ATH, meanwhile BTC will stay as it is, hopefully going up too, but we'll see. Maybe people get tired and move to LTC, but I guess people that don't care about making any transactions will stick with BTC as the hodlers coin back by the network effect.

The rest of options are stupid, including blocksize increase without segwit first.

[jonald_fyookball]

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell  

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY

So what do you want then? Segwit has been proven to be safe on testnet, it has been tested along with LN too but that's another story anyway, let's focus on segwit itself. It's been on testnet for ages, it's been on several alts, not it will be on LTC too.

The next step is to be added on bitcoin, so looks like segwit haters will not become believers until they see it live in bitcoin, but block at the same time. Decide.

Segwit is dead. Even if it were safe I wouldn't run it - it's not a solution for the current problems, its backers are showing more and more sketchy behaviors, and there are too many unknowns. Bury it and move on to the next solution.  How about we  scale bitcoin by increasing the blocksize and quit dicking around with these overcomplicated and pointless code upgrades on altcoins?

Segwit will shine in LTC along with lightning network and LTC will go to new ATH, meanwhile BTC will stay as it is, hopefully going up too, but we'll see. Maybe people get tired and move to LTC, but I guess people that don't care about making any transactions will stick with BTC as the hodlers coin back by the network effect.

The rest of options are stupid, including blocksize increase without segwit first.

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

[Lauda]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?

It is both faster and cheaper and you are most likely going to be able to make multi-coin transfers with it (see latest news on LTC & BTC LN). I don't see why someone would not want to use LN (excluding very high profile transactions for which a larger number of confirmations is recommended).

[leopard2]

Andreas statements about Bitmain are 100% correct, not sure about AXA being a threat...

As long as Segwit is introduced together with a guarantee that Onchain transfers will always remain an affordable alternative for reasonably sized transactions, LN will never be a threat.  

LTC has done that. Guaranteed block size increase PLUS Segwit

Massive pump resulted....market likes it. Discussion pointless. 

[leopard2]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

[jonald_fyookball]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.   

[FiendCoin]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.   

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.

[The One]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.   

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.

A bit like saying why would companies build bigger factories when a small one would do?

Learn economics. Bigger blocks = more txs = more fees.

[FiendCoin]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.  

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.

A bit like saying why would companies build bigger factories when a small one would do?

Learn economics. Bigger blocks = more txs = more fees.

Ridiculous, here's why (From Blockchain.info):

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2014 = $5830

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2017 = $271,104

x46.5 increase.

Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?

Not to mention, even with a backlog of transactions, miners are still producing empty blocks.

[franky1]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.  

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.

A bit like saying why would companies build bigger factories when a small one would do?

Learn economics. Bigger blocks = more txs = more fees.

Ridiculous, here's why (From Blockchain.info):

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2014 = $5830

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2017 = $271,104

x46.5 increase.

Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?

Not to mention, even with a backlog of transactions, miners are still producing empty blocks.

1. blockstream(CORE) removed all the fee controlling code. = core caused a fee rise. not pools.. core become bankers by not relying on code to control things and just instead shouted "just pay more"

2. blockstream(CORE) bypassed node consensus by going soft = core gave the only veto power to pools for segwit... pools didnt have control before core gave it to them. pools dont have control over other implementation proposals

3. other implementations are sticking with the standard NODE and POOL symbiotic consensus. thats has existed since day one and made no threats of splits/ PoW changing / banning nodes

4. re-implementing a new 'priority' formulae can actually reward lean average users with cheap fee's while penalising bloated repeat spenders (moving funds very block spammers).

5. there is no need to push fee's to $1+ a tx EVER. far better to naturally grow the blocksize in levels nodes can handle (even core admit 8mb is 'safe') thus allowing a 2015 10c fee ($220 total) to be upto $1760 total just by allowing more 10cent tx's in. not forcing $1 fees by holding tx count limits down to cause a upto $2k total (which pools dont need right now anyway)

6. lastly to debunk your mindset that pools want fee's .. i will hand you your own words "miners are still producing empty blocks.". if they cared about fee's they wouldnt empty block.. logically

[FiendCoin]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.  

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.

A bit like saying why would companies build bigger factories when a small one would do?

Learn economics. Bigger blocks = more txs = more fees.

Ridiculous, here's why (From Blockchain.info):

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2014 = $5830

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2017 = $271,104

x46.5 increase.

Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?

Not to mention, even with a backlog of transactions, miners are still producing empty blocks.

5. there is no need to push fee's to $1+ a tx EVER. far better to naturally grow the blocksize in levels nodes can handle (even core admit 8mb is 'safe') thus allowing a 2015 10c fee ($220 total) to be upto $1760 total just by allowing more 10cent tx's in. not forcing $1 fees by holding tx count limits down to cause a upto $2k total (which pools dont need right now anyway)

6. lastly to debunk your mindset that pools want fee's .. i will hand you your own words "miners are still producing empty blocks.". if they cared about fee's they wouldnt empty block.. logically

Are you that stupid? Miners want competitive fees, they make more money that way. Empty blocks help miners create a backlog and force people to increase fees, that's what miners want, MORE MONEY.

Do you think miners want lower fees? You think they want to help users out? They want to control the blocksize so they can increase it when appropriate so they can make more money not to help users but to help themselves.

BTW, you posted a lot of irreverent information to my post AND you still didnt answer my questions," Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?"

[franky1]

Are you that stupid? Miners want competitive fees, they make more money that way. Empty blocks help miners create a backlog and force people to increase fees, that's what miners want, MORE MONEY.

Do you think miners want lower fees? You think they want to help users out? They want to control the blocksize so they can increase it when appropriate so they can make more money not to help users but to help themselves.

the empty block is not about causing a backlog intentionally. its about instead of waiting 10 seconds/minute to validate a block before making a new block its about starting a new block WHILE validating the previous block. thus unable to add new tx to the new block attempt because they are unsure if the first one is all valid..

what you find is that pools do this alot. and after validating a previous block they start adding tx's (each round of using up all the nonces) and the only time you really ever see an empty block is when they are lucky enough to get a solution within seconds(first round) to not have been able to start adding tx's to a block

BTW, you posted a lot of irreverent information to my post AND you still didnt answer my questions," Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?"

5. there is no need to push fee's to $1+ a tx EVER. far better to naturally grow the blocksize in levels nodes can handle (even core admit 8mb is 'safe') thus allowing a 2015 10c fee ($220 total) to be upto $1760 total just by allowing more 10cent tx's in. not forcing $1 fees by holding tx count limits down to cause a upto $2k total (which pools dont need right now anyway)

replace 2015 with 2014 and you have your answer.
mempool bloat changes.. but based on the last year where mempools average 3-4mb average.. then it would need 4mb blocks to bring conjection down. which to get to or exceed the 2014 fee of upto 10cent would far exceed the totals of 2014 tx fee income.. obviously

[dwieyani]

I will watch him
Do you think?

[jonald_fyookball]

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. 

That's your argument?  "Raising the blocksize is a pointless incentive, therefore we should prohibit it?"
 
You can't have it both ways:  On one hand argue that "oh no there will be no fees and no security if we have big blocks" and on the other hand say "fees will be high anyway". 

[FiendCoin]

Are you that stupid? Miners want competitive fees, they make more money that way. Empty blocks help miners create a backlog and force people to increase fees, that's what miners want, MORE MONEY.

Do you think miners want lower fees? You think they want to help users out? They want to control the blocksize so they can increase it when appropriate so they can make more money not to help users but to help themselves.

the empty block is not about causing a backlog intentionally. its about instead of waiting 10 seconds/minute to validate a block before making a new block its about starting a new block WHILE validating the previous block. thus unable to add new tx to the new block attempt because they are unsure if the first one is all valid..

what you find is that pools do this alot. and after validating a previous block they start adding tx's (each round of using up all the nonces) and the only time you really ever see an empty block is when they are lucky enough to get a solution within seconds(first round) to not have been able to start adding tx's to a block

BTW, you posted a lot of irreverent information to my post AND you still didnt answer my questions," Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?"

5. there is no need to push fee's to $1+ a tx EVER. far better to naturally grow the blocksize in levels nodes can handle (even core admit 8mb is 'safe') thus allowing a 2015 10c fee ($220 total) to be upto $1760 total just by allowing more 10cent tx's in. not forcing $1 fees by holding tx count limits down to cause a upto $2k total (which pools dont need right now anyway)

replace 2015 with 2014 and you have your answer.
mempool bloat changes.. but based on the last year where mempools average 3-4mb average.. then it would need 4mb blocks to bring conjection down. which to get to or exceed the 2014 fee of upto 10cent would far exceed the totals of 2014 tx fee income.. obviously

You still didn't answer the questions but you did try.

What blocksize will be needed and how many transactions within it will equal both the .10 cent user fees and 2017 level of miner fees ($271,104+)?

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees.  

That's your argument?  "Raising the blocksize is a pointless incentive, therefore we should prohibit it?"
 
You can't have it both ways:  On one hand argue that "oh no there will be no fees and no security if we have big blocks" and on the other hand say "fees will be high anyway".  

My argument is, even if miners got BU or some other proposal through that gave them blocksize control, they are not going to raise the blocksize over an amount where they would lose out on rising transaction fees. Meaning, if you want bigger blocks so fees return to .10 cent, it won't happen. If you think they'll cripple one source of income, you're living in la la land.

You're going to need a new argument for blocksize increase because .10 cent fees aint it buddy.

Edit: BTW, I want to see .10 cent fees again (I think that ship has sailed though). I want to see a blocksize increase after SegWit.

[jonald_fyookball]

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

[tripplewarz]

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

Experts in the world of cryptography have long come to the conclusion that the optimal block is 2 megabytes, although Chinese miners think in large volumes But as far as I know this will not happen.

[BillyBobZorton]

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell  

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY

So what do you want then? Segwit has been proven to be safe on testnet, it has been tested along with LN too but that's another story anyway, let's focus on segwit itself. It's been on testnet for ages, it's been on several alts, not it will be on LTC too.

The next step is to be added on bitcoin, so looks like segwit haters will not become believers until they see it live in bitcoin, but block at the same time. Decide.

Segwit is dead. Even if it were safe I wouldn't run it - it's not a solution for the current problems, its backers are showing more and more sketchy behaviors, and there are too many unknowns. Bury it and move on to the next solution.  How about we  scale bitcoin by increasing the blocksize and quit dicking around with these overcomplicated and pointless code upgrades on altcoins?

Segwit will shine in LTC along with lightning network and LTC will go to new ATH, meanwhile BTC will stay as it is, hopefully going up too, but we'll see. Maybe people get tired and move to LTC, but I guess people that don't care about making any transactions will stick with BTC as the hodlers coin back by the network effect.

The rest of options are stupid, including blocksize increase without segwit first.

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Segwit and lightning network will bring us technologies such as Confidential Transactions and CoinJoin, which when combined, create an anonymous coin that actually scales (unless all the other anonymous coins we have).

So those two features alone make LTC a good contender to take the lead in the "anonymous coin" market.

It's also faster and cheaper. Your coins will never get lost or anything, that's just FUD.

[FiendCoin]

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

Did I beat the shills? OMG, you guys can't answer my questions or refute my argument? 

[Lauda]

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

Irrelevant. The miners do not decide what Bitcoin is or isn't.

Experts in the world of cryptography have long come to the conclusion that the optimal block is 2 megabytes, although Chinese miners think in large volumes But as far as I know this will not happen.

Nonsense. They have long came to the conclusion that a DOS attack vector is present at 2 MB. You either go with Segwit or an extremely limited block size increase (e.g. sigops wise).

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

Did I beat the shills? OMG, you guys can't answer my questions or refute my argument? 

Jonald does not have any knowledge. He's paid to spam pseudo-science to boost propaganda and cause a diversion.

[franky1]

My argument is, even if miners got BU or some other proposal through that gave them blocksize control, they are not going to raise the blocksize over an amount where they would lose out on rising transaction fees. Meaning, if you want bigger blocks so fees return to .10 cent, it won't happen. If you think they'll cripple one source of income, you're living in la la land.

1. pools dont NEED fee's today, yea its a bonus that can fluctuate but its not their main income. the reward is their main income.
the switch of income:bonus (from reward:fee to fee:reward) wont happen foe DECADES

2. pools would prefer to do things nodes accept to ensure they get atleast the reward. so pools are not gonna push any new rule or rock the boat with any new feature unless they know its not gonna get orphaned or going to cause spendability issues with certain merchants, which they prefer to spend the rewards on.

3. you may scream that coinbase might be segwit positive but what if the merchants/exchange/private investor they trade with prefers something else... think about that!! (do you even know what method a pool uses to get its fiat)

4. to highlight point one. pools have and will find the best ways to be efficient and within acceptable rules to get their blocks accepted. even if it means abstaining from a new rule change, even if it means starting a new 'empty block' while verifying a competitors solved block from a previous round.

5. i told you to get todays 'bonus' from users paying 2014 fee's would require an 8mb block. but as i have said for months pools dont see the fee's as a NEEDED income. its just a bonus. what is more important is getting their block accepted by the nodes first. because 12.5btc is more important than 1.5btc..

6. emphasising point 5 screwing around trying to get more than x fee's by increasing the risk of losing the 12.5+fee.. is like a walmart employee trying to screw $10 out of a cash register each month, risking losing $1k a month job... its just not logical to try being greedy

Experts in the world of cryptography have long come to the conclusion that the optimal block is 2 megabytes, although Chinese miners think in large volumes But as far as I know this will not happen.

core guessed and gave fake reasons for 2mb years ago
better experts now found 32mb can work, 8mb is the general world wide no issue acceptability..
core accepted 8mb was a good safe number
core/blockstream prefer 4mb to be extra cautious because they know their compact blocks might need to ask twice for data now and again
core/blockstream prefer 1mb base with fake reasons of 'but pools NEED their fee's'.

strangely core removed lots of CODE that allows for reasonable controlled fee's thus allowing the fee's to get so out of control.
yep even in low demand, gmaxwlls 'average fee' concept keeps fee up. its not as reactive to low demand to make the price drop when demand is low
core stopped acting like devs and more like economist/bankers screaming "just pay more". yet core/blockstream have shown lack of communication with pools to actually ask the questions. 'what should core/blockstream do to make pools and nodes mutually happy' (the community)

all blockstream have done is 'would buying you a plane ticket and a seat an an exclusive bildrburg close door meting buy you blockstreams vote into following blockstream'.. yet 65% of pools even when bribed with all inclusive weekends still abstain/say nay.. because pools can see the cludgy code of segwit

[jonald_fyookball]

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

Did I beat the shills? OMG, you guys can't answer my questions or refute my argument? 

OMG you're not as clever as you think.
 
Don't need any other argument for big blocks other than its the best way for a short term capacity increase.  1 line of code vs 5000 whatever lines of Segwit.  My Choice is clear.
 
 Putting you on ignore for a while. 

[The One]

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.  

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.

A bit like saying why would companies build bigger factories when a small one would do?

Learn economics. Bigger blocks = more txs = more fees.

Ridiculous, here's why (From Blockchain.info):

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2014 = $5830

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2017 = $271,104

x46.5 increase.

Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?

Not to mention, even with a backlog of transactions, miners are still producing empty blocks.

The current fiasco is because the fees are manipulated upwards by Core. They are turning Bitcoin into an "Roll Royce car factory" instead of mass adoption "Ford factory."

Mass adoption = higher value of bitcoin which will be worth more than the current fees itself, plus fees on top.

Comparing 2014 with 2017 is like comparing an apple with an orange, and saying they are the same.

[franky1]

1 line of code vs 5000 whatever lines of Segwit.  My Choice is clear.

well for anyone thats wrote an implementation thats clean and knows the purpose of header files
they would be able to change to blocks over 1mb with 1 line of code in a header file.

yet the cludge of core ends up needing to change multiple functions in atleast 4 files. which can then cause a snowball affect of other issues if those functions were needed for other things..

in short by being cludgy they dug themselves a hole and cant get out of it with 1 spade. so rather than dig themselves out or starting again with clean code. they are trying to get people to follow them into the hole

[BillyBobZorton]

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

Did I beat the shills? OMG, you guys can't answer my questions or refute my argument? 

OMG you're not as clever as you think.
 
Don't need any other argument for big blocks other than its the best way for a short term capacity increase.  1 line of code vs 5000 whatever lines of Segwit.  My Choice is clear.
 
 Putting you on ignore for a while. 

We need segwit sooner or later in order to make the lightning network work, and also to make blocksize increases without risking quadratic hashing exploits, so why not just get it done already and roll it out?

Sooner or later we'll get segwit, this is only delaying history.

Oh and I don't discard that once Jihan and Roger get tired of making millions with alts, once LTC, ETH etc are at all time highs, they'll say "whoops, you were right" and then they'll short the altcoin market and long BTC as they start supporting segwit.

[classicsucks]

We need segwit sooner or later in order to make the lightning network work, and also to make blocksize increases without risking quadratic hashing exploits, so why not just get it done already and roll it out?

Sooner or later we'll get segwit, this is only delaying history.

Oh and I don't discard that once Jihan and Roger get tired of making millions with alts, once LTC, ETH etc are at all time highs, they'll say "whoops, you were right" and then they'll short the altcoin market and long BTC as they start supporting segwit.

Forget about Segwit/Lightning. Nobody wants the second-rate hack with second-tier vaporware on top of it.  In the real world, BTC is about to go below 50% total crypto market share. The mempool just passed 100K over the weekend, causing huge delays for transactions (with Core fanbois screaming "PAY HIGHER FEES", as if that will help everyone).

ETH, XMR, DASH are now officially taking over. Thank the core devs when you get a chance.