[SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat!

[25hashcoin]

Users complaining about high bitcoin fees....Core dev and Blockstream worker Lukejr mocks them and tells them to "just use fiat". https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ereib/these_fees_are_unacceptable/dicq95v/

These are the people responsible for stalling bitcoin. These are the people we are trusting to let bitcoin grow into mainstream.

If you seriously haven't realized the BlockstreamCore is attempting to overthrow bitcoin and constrict the blocksize forever to turn it into a settlement only system then I seriously feel sorry for you.

The BlockstreamCore devs do not understand the purpose of bitcoin which is peer to peer cash. The have been compromised from $55 million from AXA from the former Bilderberg chairman.


Wake Up!!!  

[1713968219]

1713968219

[1713968219]

1713968219

[1713968219]

1713968219

[1713968219]

1713968219

[1713968219]

1713968219

[1713968219]

1713968219

[dissident]

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.

[franky1]

you also have Gmax saying that all bitcoin developers will move over to litecoin at 57m30s of video below
and how he is happy to help litecoin..
https://youtu.be/LHPYNZ8i1cU?t=57m01s

yet any software 'brand' that is not blockstream/DCG endorsed he wont touch

follow
coblee(litecoin inventor) ->coinbase->DCG
boblee(coblee's brother) ->BTCC->DCG
gmaxwell -> blockstream -> DCG
luke Jr -> blockstream -> DCG
RustyRuss(LN) -> blockstream -> DCG

and ofcourse
barry silbert(DCG)-> alansilbert(capitalone healthcare)->hyperledger

[deisik]

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

[franky1]

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.

And that most likely will be Litecoin

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming that miners have been screaming for years about the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was as required as they have been screaming, what prevented them from introducing this increase on their own? Okay, some dudes would readily say that they want consensus but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact such an urgent feature as the miners are pretending it ti be?

more like any attempt to make a implementation that offers it gets slammed with rekt campaigns.
yet when core introduce something different they want everyone else to follow.
but then pretend they dont 'add anything new' EG they dont want to add replay attack protection as thats the job of the opposition
but then pretend they dont 'add anything new' EG dynamics.. as thats the job of the opposition.

its like their road or F off back to fiat

a stable 'reference' client should allow all the bips and then have options/'switches' for users to enable and disable depending on which route consensus follows.
core should not be the dictators. but at most facilitator

[BillyBobZorton]

The only ones here responsible for stalling bitcoin are miners by not signaling BIP 141 aka segwit. If they wanted to scale, they would activate it right now, but they just want bigger fees.

Run UASF or keep dreaming about miners activating anything that really scales bitcoin.

[Variogam]

Even among Core devs is Luke-jr controversial figure for the fact he sometimes brings very contentious things to the table. Shocking? No, just usual standard from Luke-jr.

The only ones here responsible for stalling bitcoin are miners by not signaling BIP 141 aka segwit. If they wanted to scale, they would activate it right now, but they just want bigger fees.

80%+ miners agreed to SegWit2x. They start signalling after SegWit2x code is ready and tested.

[MingLee]

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

I'm curious as to why you think that Litecoin would be the next crypto to replace Bitcoin if there is some catastrophic event. Looking at the market caps and volumes alone, I see Ethereum and Ripple ahead of Litecoin in both aspects, so I would assume one of those two would become the next big crypto and fill the power gap.
Does your theory focus mainly around LTC activating segwit? Or is there something else I haven't touched on here?

[25hashcoin]

The only ones here responsible for stalling bitcoin are miners by not signaling BIP 141 aka segwit. If they wanted to scale, they would activate it right now, but they just want bigger fees.

Run UASF or keep dreaming about miners activating anything that really scales bitcoin.

You're just ignoring facts. Here's why the miners don't want to support Segwit especially as a stand alone upgrade: https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/why-we-must-oppose-cores-segwit-soft-fork-bitcoin-miner-jiang-zhuo-er-tells-you-why-28f820d51f98


Let's review:

Miners support a blocksize increase, but not segwit.


Core supports segwit but not a blocksize increase.


What's the difference? Miners have actually compromised to include segwit2x. Core is still going by "our way or no way" which is killing bitcoin. They refuse to compromise.

So how you can place the blame on the miners for having just as good (actually way better) reasons for opposing an upgrade, and who have shown compromise is just plain and pure 100% unadulterated ignorance on your part.

I think you are going to be in for a surprise if Core refuses to compromise as the miners and the industry will undoubtedly fork away from their settlement uasf altcoin to big blocks. The fact we are even giving them a chance to compromise sort of blows my mind. Core deserves to be completely abandoned and ostracized from the community for their ongoing attacks and crippling of Bitcoin.

[TryNinja]

I'm curious as to why you think that Litecoin would be the next crypto to replace Bitcoin if there is some catastrophic event. Looking at the market caps and volumes alone, I see Ethereum and Ripple ahead of Litecoin in both aspects, so I would assume one of those two would become the next big crypto and fill the power gap.
Does your theory focus mainly around LTC activating segwit? Or is there something else I haven't touched on here?

I agree that Litecoin is the closest to be the next crypto if Bitcoin ever fails. Right now Litecoin is the faster version of Bitcoin, with low fees and quicker transaction confirmation time especially now with Segwit activated.

Ripple = centralized, controlled by banks. IMO not what we want for our ecosystem.
Ethereum = can be, but I still see it more as an intermediary to buy/create tokens and be used by devs, than a currency used for shopping.

I guess block split is inevitable since miners, core dev and community have different opinion on bitcoin scaling

Not with Segwit2x, since we can get 80% of hash power. Also, Core doesn't own Bitcoin. They can't just tell everybody what path Bitcoin is going to take.

[deisik]

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

I'm curious as to why you think that Litecoin would be the next crypto to replace Bitcoin if there is some catastrophic event. Looking at the market caps and volumes alone, I see Ethereum and Ripple ahead of Litecoin in both aspects, so I would assume one of those two would become the next big crypto and fill the power gap.
Does your theory focus mainly around LTC activating segwit? Or is there something else I haven't touched on here?

Litecoin right now is what Bitcoin might only become (technology wise)

And if it doesn't become that (which is not impossible), Litecoin will be the first candidate to take the empty throne. I agree that it lags behind Ethereum and Ripple as of now, but you should understand that it was only a copycap of Bitcoin till recently (with insignificant improvements). So if Bitcoin dies or becomes toxic, Bitcoin folks will most likely switch to Litecoin, not Ethereum or Ripple. This seems to be what you might be missing. Other than that, it is simple, it is fast, it is cheap (both in terms of transaction fees and current price, in respect to Bitcoin price)

[Itty Bitty]

Users complaining about high bitcoin fees....Core dev and Blockstream worker Lukejr mocks them and tells them to "just use fiat". https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ereib/these_fees_are_unacceptable/dicq95v/

Until a few months ago, no one talked about satoshis per byte. For years now transactions have been so cheap that you could have addresses with lots of tiny inputs, and it would still cost only 0.0001 or 0.00005 BTC to send. Since I was just a user sitting behind the driving wheel, clueless as to what an alternator or a distributor was, I paid absolutely no attention to the size amounts coming into addresses. Now suddenly, the truth comes forward, and it can now cost tens of dollars to move out smallish amount of bitcoin in an address. It can also cost a still reasonable amount, if you only have one input in an address that you're  spending.

Anyway, now we all know better, Satoshis/byte is a real world thing now, and smallish amounts of BTC will be sent less and less frequently, sending bitcoin on chain will not be for tiny amounts anymore, fees will be more reasonable once this turnover of small inputs finishes, and we'll all adjust our usage habits.

[franky1]

Until a few months ago, no one talked about satoshis per byte. For years now transactions have been so cheap that you could have addresses with lots of tiny inputs, and it would still cost only 0.0001 or 0.00005 BTC to send. Since I was just a user sitting behind the driving wheel, clueless as to what an alternator or a distributor was, I paid absolutely no attention to the size amounts coming into addresses. Now suddenly, the truth comes forward, and it can now cost tens of dollars to move out smallish amount of bitcoin in an address. It can also cost a still reasonable amount, if you only have one input in an address that you're  spending.

Anyway, now we all know better, Satoshis/byte is a real world thing now, and smallish amounts of BTC will be sent less and less frequently, sending bitcoin on chain will not be for tiny amounts anymore, fees will be more reasonable once this turnover of small inputs finishes, and we'll all adjust our usage habits.

everything you said is due to CORE removing many fee control mechanisms.
the cost can actually be eleviated by bringing in a NEW 'priority fee formulae'

which the fee rises not by how much you spend. but more so how soon you want it confirmed.
take this one as an example

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

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

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending again for an average of 24 hours.(thats what CLTV does) to win lower fee

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


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain ($0.01).
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)

note this is not perfect. but think about it

[unamis76]

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

80%+ miners agreed to SegWit2x. They start signalling after SegWit2x code is ready and tested.

How long will that take and how much longer can we go without it?

Litecoin right now is what Bitcoin might only become

A coin with less users? We can't turn back time. Only way to have less users is to (keep) destroying Bitcoin, but I'm pretty sure 99% of the people here don't want that.

[deisik]

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency and emergency in increasing the blocksize, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and his damned dog should readily and happily switch to this fork. If they won't and ain't gonna, then all outcries and screams and yells on the miners' part are in fact no more than deliberate and cynical attempts to postpone or prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates and preachers here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then decide to unignore for some obscure reason)

[25hashcoin]

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't hard-fork Bitcoin? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency in increasing the blockzise, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and damned dog will quickly and unreservedly switch to this fork. If they won't, then all outcries and screams are in fact no more that deliberate and cynical attempts to prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then deciding to unignore for some obscure reason)

I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain.

[deisik]

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't hard-fork Bitcoin? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency in increasing the blockzise, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and damned dog will quickly and unreservedly switch to this fork. If they won't, then all outcries and screams are in fact no more that deliberate and cynical attempts to prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then deciding to unignore for some obscure reason)

I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain

That's what I'm telling next

And now you are about to arrive at the same conclusion and inference that I had come to myself some time ago (I made a few posts about that as well). My point is that miners are interested in keeping the current status quo, at least, as long as prices are rising. How come? Because any decision that is going to be accepted will hurt them financially. And here's the crux of the matter. If you look at the actions of the parties involved from this point of view, it becomes abundantly clear that miners, rogue miners are intentionally putting grit in the machine. They come up with a sort of compromise but make it unacceptable so that the stalemate is set to continue, which is exactly what they aim at. Regarding Segwit2x code, do you really think it will be less buggy than BU, and Core is ever going to accept it? Its aim is the same as that of now dead BU, it is not meant to be actually implemented, as was the case with pure BU

[franky1]

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)?

because consensus (real consensus) not the reddit propaganda crap the fudsters script... REAL consensus doesnt work by pools simply making bigger blocks.
those bigger blocks would get rejected in 3 seconds

[25hashcoin]

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't hard-fork Bitcoin? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency in increasing the blockzise, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and damned dog will quickly and unreservedly switch to this fork. If they won't, then all outcries and screams are in fact no more that deliberate and cynical attempts to prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then deciding to unignore for some obscure reason)

I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain

That's what I'm telling next

And now you are about to arrive at the same conclusion and inference that I had come to myself some time ago (I made a few posts of that as well). My point is that miners are interested in keeping the current status quo, at least, as long as prices are rising. How come? Because any decision that is going to be accepted will hurt them financially. And here's the crux of the matter. If you look at the actions of the parties involved it from this point of view, it becomes abundantly clear that miners, rogue miners are intentionally putting grit in the machine. They come up with a sort of compromise but make it unacceptable so the stalemate is set to continue, which is what they aim at

What is this unacceptable compromise? They have been pushing for bigger blocks for a while now. Consensus on bigger blocks would just put bitcoin price through the freaking roof, so I really don't believe the miners are stalling for their own profit gains. They simply oppose segwit mostly due to the fact that they believe Core is trying to cripple bitcoin, they don't trust letting them have segwit without a blocksize increase...which is doing a huge service to bitcoin. We should all be thanking them, I know I will be personally once we rid Bitcoin of Core and Blockstream. https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/why-we-must-oppose-cores-segwit-soft-fork-bitcoin-miner-jiang-zhuo-er-tells-you-why-28f820d51f98

[RodeoX]

Some guy said something!!!! OMG, this must be huge!!!?