Andreas redpills /r/btc loons

[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.

[1715194434]

1715194434

[1715194434]

1715194434

[1715194434]

1715194434

[1715194434]

1715194434

[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.