bitcoin scaling war explained in simple terms

[jonald_fyookball]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/6ndfut/buttcoin_is_decentralized_in_5_nodes/dk9c27f/

[franky1]

LJR actually wants SW because LJR makes money through merge mining and wants all the exploits available to get sidechains running to merge mine many coins and get lots of funds that most pool customers dont realise are possible to get from mining

Gmax wants SW+LN without a base block increase. because he wants the onchain fee to grow to allow all the BScartell LN hubs to charge more per LN 'payment' so that barry can recoup money from all the investments of his portfolio including blockstram and bloq.
EG if onchain was 10c LNwould have to charge 0.01cent.. but if onchain was $2 LN could charge 1cent and people would be somewhat "happy"

the gavin vs blockstream is just social drama of distraction trying to assume gavin became corporatised while cor secretly(back then) was the actual group becoming corporatised..
(standard point in opposite direction distraction technique)

[eule]

Thanks for the link. Everyone with half a brain should recognize that the unwillingness to increase the blocksize is driven by ulterior motives and greed. A second layer is unnecessary and opposite to Satoshi's stated goal of decentralization.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

LJR actually wants SW because LJR makes money through merge mining and wants all the exploits available to get sidechains running to merge mine many coins and get lots of funds that most pool customers dont realise are possible to get from mining

Gmax wants SW+LN without a base block increase. because he wants the onchain fee to grow to allow all the BScartell LN hubs to charge more per LN 'payment' so that barry can recoup money from all the investments of his portfolio including blockstram and bloq.
EG if onchain was 10c LNwould have to charge 0.01cent.. but if onchain was $2 LN could charge 1cent and people would be somewhat "happy"

the gavin vs blockstream is just social drama of distraction trying to assume gavin became corporatised while cor secretly(back then) was the actual group becoming corporatised..
(standard point in opposite direction distraction technique)

Exactly.

Also thank you for pointing out the distraction technique: I think its important for readers to engage their critical thinking especially on these forums with popular topics.

Thanks for the link. Everyone with half a brain should recognize that the unwillingness to increase the blocksize is driven by ulterior motives and greed. A second layer is unnecessary and opposite to Satoshi's stated goal of decentralization.

eule: Quite the contrary.

To all. I'd be comfortable to go as far as saying:

Be aware of the fact that everyone involved in the hardfork is a direct enemy of bitcoin.

Bitcoin has been a beautiful success going on 8-years strong.

[franky1]

Be aware of the fact that everyone involved in the hardfork is a direct enemy of bitcoin.

hard forks are not dangerous or enemies of bitcoin. as long as the hard fork actually uses the full symbiotic consensus to enable a hard fork.
segwit whether bip9 or any other bip has avoided a proper consensus.. yep even sgwit2x is avoiding true consensus.

softforks can cause a bilateral split just as much as a hard for can.

soft bypasses certain symbiotic vote/veto where as hard utilities full symbiotic relationship vote/veto.

the issues of splitting or not splitting is not soft or hard.. its simply consensus vs controversial. and whether the controverts either giving and join majority or go on a ban-hammer session of dis-communicating opposing nodes to keep their minority alive(can happen soft or hard)

its worth people actually running scenario's instead of script reading from reddit

[Hydrogen]

The scaling war is miners attempt to seize control of the developer side of things.

Bitcoin unlimited/segwit are puppet groups for miners.

Best move is to support core and keep things decentralized, rather than support bu/segwit and give miners all the power in a centralized format.

[BigBall]

I hope that my bitcoins will be safe when that happent and that bitcoin will not be destroyed.Also I hope that I will be able to buy bitcoin for less than 100 usd to become a rich and sell it for 3000$.

[Rahar02]

Be aware of the fact that everyone involved in the hardfork is a direct enemy of bitcoin.

hard forks are not dangerous or enemies of bitcoin. as long as the hard fork actually uses the full symbiotic consensus to enable a hard fork.
segwit whether bip9 or any other bip has avoided a proper consensus.. yep even sgwit2x is avoiding true consensus.

softforks can cause a bilateral split just as much as a hard for can.

soft bypasses certain symbiotic vote/veto where as hard utilities full symbiotic relationship vote/veto.

the issues of splitting or not splitting is not soft or hard.. its simply consensus vs controversial. and whether the controverts either giving and join majority or go on a ban-hammer session of dis-communicating opposing nodes to keep their minority alive(can happen soft or hard)

its worth people actually running scenario's instead of script reading from reddit

Most people don't know, should we support segwit or segwit2x But at least all of us want bitcoin problem be solved.
And bad news about hard fork has been doing so well to frighten people which make traders easily play with the market price, and bitcoin price continue to decline.
Glad to see you around franky1,
There are a lot of uncertain news at the moment regarding segwit-BIP141 and segwit2x-BIP9, which one do you think will be activated franky1? As I've seen at https://coin.dance/blocks, it seems segwit2x support has reach over 87%.
Whether it will be segwit or segwit2x, what the advantages and disadvantages of both of it in your opinion? Thank you for sharing with us.

[bs.glory]

I think it has been said with this link:  http://www.investopedia.com/news/war-between-segwit-vs-bip148-vs-bitcoin-unlimited-explained/

"The fragmented mandate on Bitcoin’s scaling issue has been going on for more than a year. The issue revolves around the size of the blocks which are added to its blockchain​. Bitcoin blocks have a limited ‘storage’ capacity of 1MB under the current popular system of Bitcoin Core..."

[franky1]

Most people don't know, should we support segwit or segwit2x But at least all of us want bitcoin problem be solved.
And bad news about hard fork has been doing so well to frighten people which make traders easily play with the market price, and bitcoin price continue to decline.
Glad to see you around franky1,
There are a lot of uncertain news at the moment regarding segwit-BIP141 and segwit2x-BIP91, which one do you think will be activated franky1? As I've seen at https://coin.dance/blocks, it seems segwit2x support has reach over 87%.
Whether it will be segwit or segwit2x, what the advantages and disadvantages of both of it in your opinion? Thank you for sharing with us.

in short

segwit2x is suppose to at 80% trigger to kill off the opposition pools to then get a 95% (fake) display to trigger the bip9 (141))

as for the baseblock2x aspect.. thats something to occur 3 months after IF the majority is running sgwit2x nodes..

in very short segwit 2x is a bait and switch by BScartel to push segwit to activate way before november. and then leave the empty hope of a 2x base block..

same story as late 2015

[RealBitcoin]

Be aware of the fact that everyone involved in the hardfork is a direct enemy of bitcoin.

hard forks are not dangerous or enemies of bitcoin. as long as the hard fork actually uses the full symbiotic consensus to enable a hard fork.
segwit whether bip9 or any other bip has avoided a proper consensus.. yep even sgwit2x is avoiding true consensus.

softforks can cause a bilateral split just as much as a hard for can.

soft bypasses certain symbiotic vote/veto where as hard utilities full symbiotic relationship vote/veto.

the issues of splitting or not splitting is not soft or hard.. its simply consensus vs controversial. and whether the controverts either giving and join majority or go on a ban-hammer session of dis-communicating opposing nodes to keep their minority alive(can happen soft or hard)

its worth people actually running scenario's instead of script reading from reddit

What do you think will happen on August 1st, Core or Unlimited will win?

[Rahar02]

Most people don't know, should we support segwit or segwit2x But at least all of us want bitcoin problem be solved.
And bad news about hard fork has been doing so well to frighten people which make traders easily play with the market price, and bitcoin price continue to decline.
Glad to see you around franky1,
There are a lot of uncertain news at the moment regarding segwit-BIP141 and segwit2x-BIP91, which one do you think will be activated franky1? As I've seen at https://coin.dance/blocks, it seems segwit2x support has reach over 87%.
Whether it will be segwit or segwit2x, what the advantages and disadvantages of both of it in your opinion? Thank you for sharing with us.

in short

segwit2x is suppose to at 80% trigger to kill off the opposition pools to then get a 95% (fake) display to trigger the bip9 (141))

as for the baseblock2x aspect.. thats something to occur 3 months after IF the majority is running sgwit2x nodes..

in very short segwit 2x is a bait and switch by BScartel to push segwit to activate way before november. and then leave the empty hope of a 2x base block..

same story as late 2015

So, it just like you've mentioned ;  social drama of distraction.
I assume ; segwit is a good thing then nothing, as the solution for bitcoin problems, am I wrong?
If segwit could be activated and it works, it will be like litecoin last month, the price will 'skyrocket' in August then.
It's a pain relief to know that current drop is just a bait to lure more cheaper coins, before we're going to over $3000, isn't it?

[franky1]

So, it just like you've mentioned ;  social drama of distraction.
I assume ; segwit is a good thing then nothing, as the solution for bitcoin problems, am I wrong?
If segwit could be activated and it works, it will be like litecoin last month, the price will 'skyrocket' in August then.
It's a pain relief to know that current drop is just a bait to lure more cheaper coins, before we're going to over $3000, isn't it?

segwit doesnt solve anything. it 'voluntarily enables'.. which is a different thing
the "activation" solves nothing.
its all about keypair utility/functionality.. which only if the majority of people move funds to segwit keypairs after activation that something could happen.
funny part is litecoin activated yet the pools that supported litecoins activation are not actually using segwit keypairs.

segwit activation does not make malleation impossible
segwit activation does not make quadratics impossible
segwit activation does not make scaled growth guaranteed.

research the keypair utility after activation to get the real facts about segwits "promises"

all the activation does is change the network topology from peer-to-peer same level.. to a tier network of upstream 'filter/bridge' fullnodes(seeds) and down stream 'filtered/stripped' nodes(leachers)

as for price drama
follow (the karate kids)Mr miagi's advice for painting a fence "up, down, up down, up down"

[iamTom123]

Thanks for the link. Everyone with half a brain should recognize that the unwillingness to increase the blocksize is driven by ulterior motives and greed. A second layer is unnecessary and opposite to Satoshi's stated goal of decentralization.

And that makes this whole thing really messy. Greed can blind anybody of making good judgement for the good of all people concern. Greed if not properly channeled can be a destructive force affecting all the person is doing and extending into the things around the person.

This is a facet I don't like about this whole scaling debate...as greed has that tendency to muddle everything. Yes, we need greed in business but when there is so much of that then it can be a curse and not an anymore an impetus to achieve things.

I am just wishing that maybe it is time for these people concerned to set aside some of this greed and work for the future of the Bitcoin community.

[AiWanChu]

Mt Gox couldnt kill bitcoin, Silk road closure couldnt kill bitcoin, but now.. Drama will surely kill bitcoin

[Mad7Scientist]

Is a 2 (or more) layer system possible without changing (hard forking) layer 0?

[Rahar02]

So, it just like you've mentioned ;  social drama of distraction.
I assume ; segwit is a good thing then nothing, as the solution for bitcoin problems, am I wrong?
If segwit could be activated and it works, it will be like litecoin last month, the price will 'skyrocket' in August then.
It's a pain relief to know that current drop is just a bait to lure more cheaper coins, before we're going to over $3000, isn't it?

segwit doesnt solve anything. it 'voluntarily enables'.. which is a different thing
the "activation" solves nothing.
its all about keypair utility/functionality.. which only if the majority of people move funds to segwit keypairs after activation that something could happen.
funny part is litecoin activated yet the pools that supported litecoins activation are not actually using segwit keypairs.

segwit activation does not make malleation impossible
segwit activation does not make quadratics impossible
segwit activation does not make scaled growth guaranteed.

research the keypair utility after activation to get the real facts about segwits "promises"

all the activation does is change the network topology from peer-to-peer same level.. to a tier network of upstream 'filter/bridge' fullnodes(seeds) and down stream 'filtered/stripped' nodes(leachers)

as for price drama
follow (the karate kids)Mr miagi's advice for painting a fence "up, down, up down, up down"

Thanks for your answer Sir, really appreciate it.
I'm just not an expert in nodes/codes area, even not familiar with the keypair utility.

[franky1]

Thanks for your answer Sir, really appreciate it.
I'm just not an expert in nodes/codes area, even not familiar with the keypair utility.

old (legacy)bitcoin addresses start with 1
new segwit keypairs addresses begin  bc1  (it was going to be 3 but sipa and blockstream pal rusty russel wants bc1 due to future stuff)

to actually get any utility people need to move funds to bc1 addresses
for instance there are over 50million unspend funded outputs right now that can be spent that are linked to 1 addresses that need to be moved

if people are hoping for the 7tx/s segwit promise.. then everyone needs to move funds over to these new addresses and only then do bc1 to bc1 transactions onchain.

if a block had 100% only bc1 to bc1 transactions then the network would see ~double the tx/s that segwit fanboys harped on about late 2015(but later diluted their promoting of segwit=scaling)
yep. dont expect segwit alone to be a double boost.

also things like quadratics/malleability..
anyone who moves funds to bc1 addresses wont be able to malleate /quadratic spam their transaction.

but.. malicious spammers will avoid using bc1 addresses and stick with old legacy 1 addresses and spam the blocks.. meaning its not a solution/fix. its simply disarming volunteers who decide to move funds to bc1 addresses

[Sadlife]

After all this conspiracy theories we will know everything once the segwit2x and bip148 gets implemented, if the price surge from new highs and reach $3000 then probably these updates and scalinh solution for bitcoin was really worth it to be implemented. Also the implementation of segwit in litecoin was all good cause it improves the currency and the price skyrocketed, if something that doesn't fit right in bitcoin that cause and implemented by core devs im sure the community will not let pass it and will immeadiately remove it.

[jonald_fyookball]

Is a 2 (or more) layer system possible without changing (hard forking) layer 0?

yes that was SW is supposed to do with sidechains... but why would you want to?

layer 2 is misguided.  it doesn't scale better than a single layer, at least
no one has ever shown how.

single layer is more security, more hash power.

layer two you have to either have to have weaker security or some other kinds of trade-offs.

I don't think a single layer will become centralized, because as nodes become bigger,
bitcoin becomes more valuable, so more people will get rich from bitcoin and can
run nodes...and the tech keeps getting cheaper anyway.