Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2017, 01:38:46 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: can we admit segwit SF is never going to get 95% approval?  (Read 3940 times)
mackenzied
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378



View Profile
May 13, 2017, 02:33:16 AM
 #81

I do think so. Chinese pools will never agree to activate it. We need to find another solution to solve the problem. If not, Bitcoin will be replaced by another crypto which is faster, cheaper and more convenient. Too many people join the bitcoin world but it seems that bitcoin does not want to grow up

Everyone waits for the development of bitcoin, however, the head does not agree with that, rather than choosing more robust and convenient bitcoin methods, they want to stay bitcoin, this Makes the bitcoin slow and many people leave.


▄████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████                █████████     █████████         ███████████
███████                  ███████     ███████             █████████
███████     ████████      ██████     █████      █████      ███████
███████     ████████      ██████     █████     ███████     ███████
███████     ████████     ███████     █████     ███████     ███████
███████                 ████████     █████     ███████     ███████
███████                 ████████     █████     ███████     ███████
███████     ████████     ███████     █████     ███████     ███████
███████     ████████      ██████     █████     ███████     ███████
███████     ████████      ██████     █████      █████      ███████
███████                  ███████     ███████             █████████
███████                █████████     █████████         ███████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
▀████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀
Coin





● Official site
● Facebook
● Telegram


PRESALE:
25 September, 2017
1508333926
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333926

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333926
Reply with quote  #2

1508333926
Report to moderator
1508333926
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333926

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333926
Reply with quote  #2

1508333926
Report to moderator
1508333926
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333926

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333926
Reply with quote  #2

1508333926
Report to moderator
Be very wary of relying on JavaScript for security on sites such as blockchain.info and brainwallet.org. The site can change the JavaScript at any time unless you take unusual precautions, and browsers are not generally known for their airtight security.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508333926
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333926

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333926
Reply with quote  #2

1508333926
Report to moderator
1508333926
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333926

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333926
Reply with quote  #2

1508333926
Report to moderator
1508333926
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508333926

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508333926
Reply with quote  #2

1508333926
Report to moderator
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
May 13, 2017, 12:44:02 PM
 #82

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes



I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining until Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 13, 2017, 06:21:36 PM
 #83

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes



I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining until Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

Okay, BillyBob. Can you give one good technical reason why separating out witness data is a good idea and why?

People like me don't necessarily not like Core, we just realize they are working for the banks at this point. No, they don't literally work at BoA, silly buns, they are getting paid by big corporations like AXA that represent the same interests though.

As far as I can tell, the only rational reason for separating out witness data would be if you wanted to restrict access to it later in a takeover scheme.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638


GUNBOT Licenses -10% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
May 14, 2017, 10:22:34 AM
 #84

Okay, BillyBob. Can you give one good technical reason why separating out witness data is a good idea and why?
How about you watching the video from the scaling conference from 2015? It is a *good technical reason* because it solves all the things that are clearly listed (including cons) on the Bitcoin Core website. Re-writing this list in a post is redundant.

People like me don't necessarily not like Core, we just realize they are working for the banks at this point. No, they don't literally work at BoA, silly buns, they are getting paid by big corporations like AXA that represent the same interests though.
This is complete and utter bullshit. Not only "are they" not working for the banks, they are not being paid by corporations (startup funding != being paid by) and Blockstream (if that's what you're referring to with the AXA propaganda bullshit) only represents a a part of the Bitcoin Core development[1].

As far as I can tell, the only rational reason for separating out witness data would be if you wanted to restrict access to it later in a takeover scheme.
Nonsense as always.

[1] - Here it is:


          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
rekinthis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 11:27:39 AM
 #85

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes



I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining until Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.
Hahaha you're funny man, do you really think that segwit doesn't get activated and BU guys don't agree to activate it just because they don't know the date when it would happen? It is definitely not the case, in my opinion they are afraid to lose the fees that they collect right now from including the transactions into the blocks because after a few decades that is going to be a real problem when block reward ceases. Though I am for BU as well because it raises the block size quick and to a big size, so we can avoid the massive fees that we are paying now.
Xester
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 11:41:12 AM
 #86

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes



I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.

cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 02:34:06 PM
 #87

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes



I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.

Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.

Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:34:12 AM
 #88

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes



I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.

Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.

Just because Satoshi said and did this or said that does not mean his word is law or he is correct all of the time. Did he not put the 1mb limit? Removing it now would centralize mining and make the blockchain unmmanageably very large.

Quote
Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.

You want it to scale, yes many people do. Why not fix the malleability issues first with Segwit and then make it scale through offchain means?




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

║▮
║▮
║▮

▮║
▮║
▮║



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



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




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


                   ▄▄▄    ▄▄██▄▄
                   ██▀▀██████████
                  ██     ████████
                 ▐█▀      ▀████▀
   ▄▄▄▄    ▄▄██████████▄▄    ▄▄▄▄
 ▄████████████████████████████████▄
▐██████████████████████████████████▌
▐██████████   ▀██████▀   ███████████
 █████████▌    ██████    ██████████
  ▀██████████████████████████████▀
   ▀████████▀▀████████▀▀████████▀
     ▀███████▄        ▄████████▀
       ▀████████████████████▀
          ▀▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▀
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:46:24 AM
 #89

All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. Roll Eyes



I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.

It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.

Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.

Just because Satoshi said and did this or said that does not mean his word is law or he is correct all of the time. Did he not put the 1mb limit? Removing it now would centralize mining and make the blockchain unmmanageably very large.

Quote
Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.

You want it to scale, yes many people do. Why not fix the malleability issues first with Segwit and then make it scale through offchain means?


Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two. Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 16, 2017, 03:49:06 AM
 #90


Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.

Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm.

Quote
Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???

Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?




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

║▮
║▮
║▮

▮║
▮║
▮║



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



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




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


                   ▄▄▄    ▄▄██▄▄
                   ██▀▀██████████
                  ██     ████████
                 ▐█▀      ▀████▀
   ▄▄▄▄    ▄▄██████████▄▄    ▄▄▄▄
 ▄████████████████████████████████▄
▐██████████████████████████████████▌
▐██████████   ▀██████▀   ███████████
 █████████▌    ██████    ██████████
  ▀██████████████████████████████▀
   ▀████████▀▀████████▀▀████████▀
     ▀███████▄        ▄████████▀
       ▀████████████████████▀
          ▀▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▀
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 16, 2017, 06:39:47 AM
 #91


Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.

Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm.

Quote
Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???

Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?



Why would you want to add unnecessay software?
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 16, 2017, 04:13:53 PM
 #92

Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?

Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.
spartacusrex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 601



View Profile
May 16, 2017, 04:33:03 PM
 #93

All valid questions..

Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions?

If they did - Bitcoin would be OVER anyway. And the bitcoins would hold no value. They may as well hard fork back to the BUG where you could print Bitcoins for FREE..

There is a way to get rid of SegWit without this doomsday scenario playing out.. Everyone just has to send the money BACK to normal addresses before the HARD FORK. (All though all trust would be lost - and BTC would probably be dead..)

Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)?

Yes - But only in a completely self-destructive Mad-Man way.

Are you at all concerned about this possibility?

No.

classicsucks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
May 16, 2017, 08:19:44 PM
 #94

Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?

Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?

Just WOW. I do notice a distinct wince from the Core-bois when "anyone can spend" is brought up. It just sounds BAD. I need to read up on the subject.

spartacusrex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 601



View Profile
May 16, 2017, 09:17:46 PM
 #95


Just WOW. I do notice a distinct wince from the Core-bois when "anyone can spend" is brought up. It just sounds BAD. I need to read up on the subject.


Yeah. Those bastards..

NOT ONLY do I not have to upgrade now, and do everything I could before, until I want to... BUT I DON'T EVER have to upgrade, (as far as ALL the wonderful scripting Magic is concerned), and do everything I could before, until I want to..

You inconsiderate animals. I WANTED to be forced.. HARD FORCED!

.. .. wince.


machasm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 298



View Profile
May 16, 2017, 10:19:14 PM
 #96

Meanwhile btc fees just keep creeping up.
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

TO THE MOON
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
May 17, 2017, 02:18:17 AM
 #97


Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.

Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm.

Quote
Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???

Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?



Why would you want to add unnecessay software?

Because Segwit is an improvement for Bitcoin making it more secure and robust. It is making the protocol open to technologies that will help make it scale and help make it better. Technologies like Schnorr signatures that will help in Bitcoin's scalability, efficiency and privacy.

We get all that in the safety of a soft fork.

Do you deny that Segwit will improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?

Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?

Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?

I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain.



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

║▮
║▮
║▮

▮║
▮║
▮║



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



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




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


                   ▄▄▄    ▄▄██▄▄
                   ██▀▀██████████
                  ██     ████████
                 ▐█▀      ▀████▀
   ▄▄▄▄    ▄▄██████████▄▄    ▄▄▄▄
 ▄████████████████████████████████▄
▐██████████████████████████████████▌
▐██████████   ▀██████▀   ███████████
 █████████▌    ██████    ██████████
  ▀██████████████████████████████▀
   ▀████████▀▀████████▀▀████████▀
     ▀███████▄        ▄████████▀
       ▀████████████████████▀
          ▀▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▀
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
May 17, 2017, 02:49:13 AM
 #98

Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?

Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?

I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain.

...but I was asking you.  You see, when you call in the reinforcements, instead of answering in your own words, it leaves the impression that you may have not actually thought through your position, but are merely repeating a position you have heard advocated by others.

You seem to be advocating that SegWit it would make bitcoin both more secure and more robust. Leaving the more complex questions aside for the moment, I would like you to explain to me first what these terms mean to you, and second how you believe SegWit accomplishes these goals.

Fair?

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 17, 2017, 08:31:44 PM
 #99

Complexity is the enemy of robustness.  Would love to hear anyone explain how adding 5000 lines of code, modifying dozens of files, and introducing new transaction types and data structures will improve the 'robust' aspect of Bitcoin, which has an 8 year track record of working fine.

Jordan23
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 235


View Profile
May 17, 2017, 11:33:50 PM
 #100

1) Variance.
2) Massive mining centralization due to Jihad prioritizing deployment of devices for himself rather than diversifying the network.
3) Segwit is happening.

What you do not understand is the following:
1) Supermajority of developers want Segwit over BU.
2) Supermajority of users want Segwit over BU.
3) Supermajority of the economy wants Segwit over BU.

Therefore, Segwit is happening either with:
1) MASF.
2) UASF BIP 148.
3) UASF BIP 149.

oh lauda. when you get some spare time.. look passed the butcheek of blockstream. and actually think about the bitcoin community

65% of nodes is not super majority - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
35% of pools is not super majority - http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

stop only getting fake results from your echo chamber of censored groupies..(luke JR and his fake 100,000 nodes lol)
what you are not understanding is that you are like a music bang groupy who thinks the band you adore is the best because all the other groupies you talk to love and adore it..

you are not realising that you are only talking to people on the music bands tour bus. so you cannot see anything beyond the tour buses headlights. you even wanted the tourbus radio to be tuned into a music station that only plays the blockstream tune



You are a troll that spend hours upon days trying to convince people about something you're not even getting paid for....wait maybe you are. Racist Fox News lol

Take a break. Get some pussy, maybe dick for you. Get paid. You're pathetic.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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