The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[classicsucks]

One side believes segwit will work, the other side believes it will make very little difference.

You're kidding me... you really think segwit won't "work" the way it was intended? It's been deployed for over a year on testnet (unlike segwit2x) and has been deployed on litecoin. Sure litecoin has precious little use for it but it's still in use and does exactly what it's supposed to. Or are you saying that exchanges and users simply won't use segwit transactions? Exchanges will jump ASAP for the benefits it provides and they do the bulk of the transactions (except during mempool spamming and then it's 'someone').

Uhhhm but since Litecoin activated Segwit, why do less than 1% of Litecoin transactions use the Segwit transaction format? And only a few Lightning transactions have even been processed?

Litecoin didn't even need Segwit (blocks were nowhere near full, and Litecoin was marginally a shitcoin), it was an excuse to pump the Litecoin price and hype up the benefits of Segwit. Which have yet to appear.

More dumping on today's news. People are starting to murmur about August 1...

[BillyBobZorton]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

Here is what people want based on actual data from a sibyl resistant poll using Coinbase KYC


https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/

Looks like people reject segwit2x, people want segwit, people think a hardfork should have at least 1 year of preparation minimum etc.

People in denial and Roger sockpuppets will claim the data is fake because it's hosted on Luke's website to not face the facts.

[JayJuanGee]

In a couple of years lot of LN fan boys will hate LN because they've lost a lot of money and will say we were not properly warnded that on-chain is by millions more safe than off-chain...

Which is an absolutely bullshit claim that is not surprising from BU/EC/Segwit2x supporters (all of which are dangerous cancer).

Are those fucks going to kill us?

It is really difficult to beat cancer.. sometimes the traditional treatments do not work, but I always thought that low carb coudl be helpful.. so stop giving them sugar.. cancer loves sugar.

....  

I was wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've read in 60 pages.  

Dinofelis often posted garbage that is out of touch with reality, i.e. a view of Bitcoin that fits his own agenda. I have previously suspected him to be a government/agency/corporation shill (which would make sense considering he's unwanted yet persists by continually posting his nonsense).

Funny that we get anything done in this space because there seems to be quite a few of these kinds of posters.. and after engaging with them for a while,  you cannot really conclude that they believe the shit that they are writing.

[ComputerGenie]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

Here is what people want based on actual data from a sibyl[sic] resistant poll using Coinbase KYC...

Setting aside that you're talking about around 100 people that bothered to create user accounts at a specific Bitcoin banking institution...  

LN exists on that page/poll exactly 0 times; so, did you have a point other than wasting space?  

[The One]

What growth? Look at the mempool, most of the time it's far from full. Transactions are cheap. It's only when the mempool gets spammed out of nowhere that people cry about bitcoin. Ver and co spam the network to get the big block narrative going and confuse noobs into thinking increase the blocksize is a must now or else we'll die. Bollocks.

Still not a bad thing to go the 2 MB blocks even if currently 1 MB would be sufficient.

In a couple of years it will not be and then we have double the headroom.

In a couple of years we will have lightning network, and if we REALLY need 2MB, we will do it without less risk AND with a lot of other cool things that could be implemented with a hardfork. You are supposed to get maximum consensus in a hardfork and you are supposed to get as much interesting stuff as possible to avoid needing further hardforks.

Hardforking in a matter of a couple of months with software that is clearly not up to bitcoin standards is suicidal and not logical by any means.

LN is rubbish and can benefit those who make large amount of txs daily. For normal users who make 1 tx a day, LN is plainly stupid. So yes we need bigger blocks for normal users.

[CuriousInvestor]

What growth? Look at the mempool, most of the time it's far from full. Transactions are cheap. It's only when the mempool gets spammed out of nowhere that people cry about bitcoin. Ver and co spam the network to get the big block narrative going and confuse noobs into thinking increase the blocksize is a must now or else we'll die. Bollocks.

Still not a bad thing to go the 2 MB blocks even if currently 1 MB would be sufficient.

In a couple of years it will not be and then we have double the headroom.

In a couple of years we will have lightning network, and if we REALLY need 2MB, we will do it without less risk AND with a lot of other cool things that could be implemented with a hardfork. You are supposed to get maximum consensus in a hardfork and you are supposed to get as much interesting stuff as possible to avoid needing further hardforks.

Hardforking in a matter of a couple of months with software that is clearly not up to bitcoin standards is suicidal and not logical by any means.

LN is rubbish and can benefit those who make large amount of txs daily. For normal users who make 1 tx a day, LN is plainly stupid. So yes we need bigger blocks for normal users.

Yes, LN does create centralization between big money holders but it is the only way for us to get close to 2000 TPS like Visa. Bigger blocks substantially decrease security of the Bitcoin network.

[Argon2]

NYC agreement is best and final. In 30 days this will be over without any chain split or problems. 100% smooth transition is planned. UASF will not happen.  

[-ck]

It's tricky, because there has to be a method of preventing replay attacks.  Obviously people would be critical of their efforts if they didn't ensure a clean fork.  It's almost as though they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.  And because the blocksize cap itself was rather a crude cludge to begin with, undoing it probably won't be any more graceful.  

Not really. They chose to not use a hard fork bit in the header because they wanted to hijack all the SPV clients onto their fork. A HF bit would have avoided the need for their flaky activation mechanism but then they wouldn't have had their hijack mechanism.

NYC agreement is best and final. In 30 days this will be over without any chain split or problems. 100% smooth transition is planned. UASF will not happen.  

For the segwit part of segwit2x this might be true, but definitely not for the 2MB part which comes 3 months later. Even for the segwit component, if the miners lose faith in the code because of the showstopper issue just introduced, they may revolt and not deploy it on July 21st as planned (though no mining pool has hinted at that so far.)

[The One]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want? Speak for yourself.

What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense.

I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else, bitcoin must not fork into two bitcoins, and big holders will not allow this.

Nobody holding big amounts wants a centralized network with big blocks. Bitcoin as store of value > Bitcoin as Paypal 2.0. In order for Bitcoin to stay a store of value, it must have a decentralized network, not a network run by a couple corporations.

No amount of fake spam and FUD will fork Bitcoin, the sooner you understand this reality the better.

Therein lies the problem. Bitcoin as store of value is a ponzi scam, as there is no tangible goods, like gold which can be used for others things. Bitcoin must be both, a store of value and peer to peer payment.

[The One]

NYC agreement is best and final. In 30 days this will be over without any chain split or problems. 100% smooth transition is planned. UASF will not happen.  

It is not the best but maybe the final. I suspects there will be problems. For too long the "civil war" has caused many splits among developers, splits among users, too much personal egos involved, bitter infighting. I, also believe it will continue as long as Core tries to force Bitcoin to become something inferior to peer to peer payment method.

Do not expect anything smooth.

[JayJuanGee]

What growth? Look at the mempool, most of the time it's far from full. Transactions are cheap. It's only when the mempool gets spammed out of nowhere that people cry about bitcoin. Ver and co spam the network to get the big block narrative going and confuse noobs into thinking increase the blocksize is a must now or else we'll die. Bollocks.

Still not a bad thing to go the 2 MB blocks even if currently 1 MB would be sufficient.

In a couple of years it will not be and then we have double the headroom.

In a couple of years we will have lightning network, and if we REALLY need 2MB, we will do it without less risk AND with a lot of other cool things that could be implemented with a hardfork. You are supposed to get maximum consensus in a hardfork and you are supposed to get as much interesting stuff as possible to avoid needing further hardforks.

Hardforking in a matter of a couple of months with software that is clearly not up to bitcoin standards is suicidal and not logical by any means.

LN is rubbish and can benefit those who make large amount of txs daily. For normal users who make 1 tx a day, LN is plainly stupid. So yes we need bigger blocks for normal users.

Yes, LN does create centralization between big money holders but it is the only way for us to get close to 2000 TPS like Visa. Bigger blocks substantially decrease security of the Bitcoin network.

I don't know if Lightning Network is the only way, but it seems like a pretty decent way to move a large number of transactions off the chain and to free the chain up for some of the rest of us... and furthermore, from my understanding, those supposedly off chain transactions are not completely off of the chain, because they are still linked to the chain and need to be resolved on a periodically acceptable basis... like using your computer to perform data intense processes and back ups  at night when the electricity is cheaper.

[JayJuanGee]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want? Speak for yourself.

What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense.

I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else, bitcoin must not fork into two bitcoins, and big holders will not allow this.

Nobody holding big amounts wants a centralized network with big blocks. Bitcoin as store of value > Bitcoin as Paypal 2.0. In order for Bitcoin to stay a store of value, it must have a decentralized network, not a network run by a couple corporations.

No amount of fake spam and FUD will fork Bitcoin, the sooner you understand this reality the better.

Therein lies the problem. Bitcoin as store of value is a ponzi scam, as there is no tangible goods, like gold which can be used for others things. Bitcoin must be both, a store of value and peer to peer payment.

Therein lies the problem when folks come to the space and try to assert that bitcoin is deficient in one way or another and suggest that it "must be" something that is within their thinking about it.

The fact of the matter is that either you like it or you don't and either you find utility in it or you don't.  In that regard, why the fuck has bitcoin been expanding in value for more than 8 years, because a variety of people are finding value in it, no?  

I'm sure that you have heard of the concept that something is as valuable as what people are willing to pay for it?   You have also heard of digital scarcity, right?    Seems to me that there may continue to be short term ups and down in BTC prices, but it also seems that it is going to continue to go up in value in spite some of the controversies regarding  segwit, 2x, hardfork and governance.

[ComputerGenie]

I don't know if Lightning Network is the only way, but it seems like a pretty decent way to move a large number of transactions off the chain and to free the chain up for some of the rest of us... and furthermore, from my understanding, those supposedly off chain transactions are not completely off of the chain, because they are still linked to the chain and need to be resolved on a periodically acceptable basis...

Those are called "sidechains", of which LN is not. Don't feel bad, though, you're not alone in the misconception that LN and sidechains are the same thing, it seems to be an epidemic. 

[The One]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want? Speak for yourself.

What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense.

I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else, bitcoin must not fork into two bitcoins, and big holders will not allow this.

Nobody holding big amounts wants a centralized network with big blocks. Bitcoin as store of value > Bitcoin as Paypal 2.0. In order for Bitcoin to stay a store of value, it must have a decentralized network, not a network run by a couple corporations.

No amount of fake spam and FUD will fork Bitcoin, the sooner you understand this reality the better.

Therein lies the problem. Bitcoin as store of value is a ponzi scam, as there is no tangible goods, like gold which can be used for others things. Bitcoin must be both, a store of value and peer to peer payment.

Therein lies the problem when folks come to the space and try to assert that bitcoin is deficient in one way or another and suggest that it "must be" something that is within their thinking about it.

The fact of the matter is that either you like it or you don't and either you find utility in it or you don't.  In that regard, why the fuck has bitcoin been expanding in value for more than 8 years, because a variety of people are finding value in it, no?  

I'm sure that you have heard of the concept that something is as valuable as what people are willing to pay for it?   You have also heard of digital scarcity, right?    Seems to me that there may continue to be short term ups and down in BTC prices, but it also seems that it is going to continue to go up in value in spite some of the controversies regarding  segwit, 2x, hardfork and governance.

The value of BTC goes up when there is more interest from new users. I would surmise most new users in the last 2 years are only here for short-term profit via speculation and at some point they will cash out. The rest want to use BTC as a payment and store of value - the value can only go up to a certain limit, unless new users wanting to use BTC as intended and not as a short-term speculation, come in then the value will keep going up. The currents users are mostly libertarians, people who understand that fiat money is crap and computer geeks. Bitcoins needs common people to understand and use BTC. Greater adoption rate is the only way forwards. 1mb block limit is so laughable and stupid and worry about the network is utter tosh. Most of us can download 1mb in less than a second.

[JayJuanGee]

I don't know if Lightning Network is the only way, but it seems like a pretty decent way to move a large number of transactions off the chain and to free the chain up for some of the rest of us... and furthermore, from my understanding, those supposedly off chain transactions are not completely off of the chain, because they are still linked to the chain and need to be resolved on a periodically acceptable basis...

Those are called "sidechains", of which LN is not. Don't feel bad, though, you're not alone in the misconception that LN and sidechains are the same thing, it seems to be an epidemic.  

Would you like to provide a quickie 'spaining?  

[JayJuanGee]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want? Speak for yourself.

What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense.

I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else, bitcoin must not fork into two bitcoins, and big holders will not allow this.

Nobody holding big amounts wants a centralized network with big blocks. Bitcoin as store of value > Bitcoin as Paypal 2.0. In order for Bitcoin to stay a store of value, it must have a decentralized network, not a network run by a couple corporations.

No amount of fake spam and FUD will fork Bitcoin, the sooner you understand this reality the better.

Therein lies the problem. Bitcoin as store of value is a ponzi scam, as there is no tangible goods, like gold which can be used for others things. Bitcoin must be both, a store of value and peer to peer payment.

Therein lies the problem when folks come to the space and try to assert that bitcoin is deficient in one way or another and suggest that it "must be" something that is within their thinking about it.

The fact of the matter is that either you like it or you don't and either you find utility in it or you don't.  In that regard, why the fuck has bitcoin been expanding in value for more than 8 years, because a variety of people are finding value in it, no?  

I'm sure that you have heard of the concept that something is as valuable as what people are willing to pay for it?   You have also heard of digital scarcity, right?    Seems to me that there may continue to be short term ups and down in BTC prices, but it also seems that it is going to continue to go up in value in spite some of the controversies regarding  segwit, 2x, hardfork and governance.

The value of BTC goes up when there is more interest from new users. I would surmise most new users in the last 2 years are only here for short-term profit via speculation and at some point they will cash out. The rest want to use BTC as a payment and store of value - the value can only go up to a certain limit, unless new users wanting to use BTC as intended and not as a short-term speculation, come in then the value will keep going up. The currents users are mostly libertarians, people who understand that fiat money is crap and computer geeks. Bitcoins needs common people to understand and use BTC. Greater adoption rate is the only way forwards. 1mb block limit is so laughable and stupid and worry about the network is utter tosh. Most of us can download 1mb in less than a second.

It sounds like you learned your talking points well, and it also sounds like you are caught upon trying to prescribe bitcoin rather just accepting and recognizing value in bitcoin as it is and as it is evolving.

Evolution takes time, and rome was not built in a day... There are all kinds of ongoing developments, expansion and adoption that is likely going to continue to evolve the whole system..

So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that?  No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."

[ComputerGenie]

Would you like to provide a quick 'spaining?  

OK, Lucy, here goes the "quick" version:

• LN is not a sidechain
• LN is not part of Bitcoin
• LN is part of an eCommerce business model that is detached from Bitcoin
• LN is not even similar to a sidechain
• LN is not part of Bitcoin

[The One]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

How do you know what the vast majority of bitcoin users want? Speak for yourself.

What the majority of bitcoiners sure don't want is piece of shit software rushed in a couple of months to hardfork bitcoin into two coins collapsing the price, that is what they don't want.

People that have a lot of money invested in bitcoin and therefore got the most skin in the game, do NOT want this stupid hardfork nonsense.

I couldn't care less about segwit, LN or anything else, bitcoin must not fork into two bitcoins, and big holders will not allow this.

Nobody holding big amounts wants a centralized network with big blocks. Bitcoin as store of value > Bitcoin as Paypal 2.0. In order for Bitcoin to stay a store of value, it must have a decentralized network, not a network run by a couple corporations.

No amount of fake spam and FUD will fork Bitcoin, the sooner you understand this reality the better.

Therein lies the problem. Bitcoin as store of value is a ponzi scam, as there is no tangible goods, like gold which can be used for others things. Bitcoin must be both, a store of value and peer to peer payment.

Therein lies the problem when folks come to the space and try to assert that bitcoin is deficient in one way or another and suggest that it "must be" something that is within their thinking about it.

The fact of the matter is that either you like it or you don't and either you find utility in it or you don't.  In that regard, why the fuck has bitcoin been expanding in value for more than 8 years, because a variety of people are finding value in it, no?  

I'm sure that you have heard of the concept that something is as valuable as what people are willing to pay for it?   You have also heard of digital scarcity, right?    Seems to me that there may continue to be short term ups and down in BTC prices, but it also seems that it is going to continue to go up in value in spite some of the controversies regarding  segwit, 2x, hardfork and governance.

The value of BTC goes up when there is more interest from new users. I would surmise most new users in the last 2 years are only here for short-term profit via speculation and at some point they will cash out. The rest want to use BTC as a payment and store of value - the value can only go up to a certain limit, unless new users wanting to use BTC as intended and not as a short-term speculation, come in then the value will keep going up. The currents users are mostly libertarians, people who understand that fiat money is crap and computer geeks. Bitcoins needs common people to understand and use BTC. Greater adoption rate is the only way forwards. 1mb block limit is so laughable and stupid and worry about the network is utter tosh. Most of us can download 1mb in less than a second.

It sounds like you learned your talking points well, and it also sounds like you are caught upon trying to prescribe bitcoin rather just accepting and recognizing value in bitcoin as it is and as it is evolving.

Evolution takes time, and rome was not built in a day... There are all kinds of ongoing developments, expansion and adoption that is likely going to continue to evolve the whole system..

So your suggestion that bitcoin is broken or deficient because it does not adequately compete with Visa comes off as a load of propagandistic and premature nonsense.. Bitcoin is way to immature to be even striving to compete directly with such a large system - but that does not mean that bitcoin does not have value for what it is - a decentralized immutable secure storage and transfer of value... think of all the power of that?  No other system comes close to bitcoin in terms of the exact thing that it is providing at this moment - even if it remains a "work-in-progress."

I never suggested that.

[dinofelis]

In a couple of years we will have lightning network....

* ComputerGenie hopes that in a couple of years everyone will finally understand that LN isn't part of Bitcoin, that LN doesn't serve the needs or uses of the vast majority of Bitcoin users, and that LN isn't part of Bitcoin.  

In a couple of years lot of LN fan boys will hate LN because they've lost a lot of money and will say we were not properly warnded that on-chain is by millions more safe than off-chain...

In fact, I think that the LN is a good way of adapting to what crypto REALLY looks like:

big exchanges with customers trading on it

LN is quite well made for that, and LN links between customers and their exchange(s) is a perfect way to make the link between the customer and the exchange honest and trustless.  By using a LN channel to your favorite exchange, you don't give then coins in return for web-site IOU, but you are still master of your coins, the exchange cannot apply fractional reserve banking, and cannot put up messages like "withdrawals impossible now" and things like that.

LN is perfect for the relationship exchange-customer (which is what bitcoin and most crypto *essentially* is).  Moreover, LN would then even allow links between exchanges.  They would be the central hubs in the LN network.  So through this network, you could pay other people that have accounts on other exchanges, and this would be much more trustless than now, when you have given up your coins, and you hope that the exchanges will treat the IOU correctly (that is, that they will honour in the end, your supposed right of withdrawal).

But this is about the only way of using LN: making exchanges into big banks.  Which is, what crypto is in any case, about for 99%.

[JayJuanGee]

Would you like to provide a quick 'spaining?  

OK, Lucy, here goes the "quick" version:

• LN is not a sidechain
• LN is not part of Bitcoin
• LN is part of an eCommerce business model that is detached from Bitcoin
• LN is not even similar to a sidechain
• LN is not part of Bitcoin

Your rendition does not come off as very helpful in order to facilitate any kind of meaningful discussion of the matter.  You act as if Lightning network is some kind of private entity that is intended to take over and pervert bitcoin in some kind of nonsensical way - when the fact of the matter is that it is open source and it also is going to quite likely facilitate a lot of transaction flow to allow bitcoin to become more competitive as a payment system, like you BIG blocker nutjobs continue to argue as important to bitcoin's competitiveness in the world of little man finances.

This question answer seems to describe Lightning Network in a comprehensive way that does not really seem to be out of line with my previous layman rendition.

https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70