An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet

[NeuroticFish]

Since I understood Franky's point (from another thread), I will return to the proposal.

be among the first to go full Bech32, and with your help, we'll get SegWit to 100% and take bitcoin to the moon.

And .. hmm.. no, it's not the right direction imho.
If I'd migrate to bc1 address, there would be services unable to pay me. Then why do that? To .. force the services? Good one.

Somebody would have to convince the services migrate to SegWit. (Which is a tough job, since some important ones have Roger's tail wrapped in)
Until then, sorry, legacy SegWit is just the proper way imho.

(And yes, old 1x are still the proper way for cold storage or paper wallets. Safety 1st.)


The way to convince people is also not ok. I know that since I have SegWit address, if I send to another SegWit address, my transaction has a good chance to go faster for about the same money. This should be the direction to convince people. But again, the various services should do this change themselves, else we gained nothing.

[1714904767]

1714904767

[1714904767]

1714904767

[1714904767]

1714904767

[1714904767]

1714904767

[franky1]

maybe requesting the big segwit promoters to act first.

after 2 years of endless 'segwit is perfect solution, well tested blah blah blah'... well
(i know it was only activated in 2017. but since 2015-16 they been saying how great it is working on testnets and how perfect it is)

btcc
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000d5996219bc24e4f98c6113c2b29c7a5283e181b631730
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

LukeJR
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3318
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

achow101
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=290195
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

theymos
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35
wheres their trust in bech32(bc1q) addresses

.....
and now the cherry on top

the main guy.. the segwit code master himself.. pieter wuille(sipa)
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
Tips and donations: 1Nrohb....

[Wind_FURY]

oh wind_fury.. your not a coder. so why are you promoting such scheme without you yourself actually putting in the effort of understanding the ramifications.

But yet you, who acts like you're smarter than everyone, lies and resorts to gaslighting in every argument.

lies?
kinda funny..
i actually go out of my way to do the math. i even post in examples, stats and other things.
did you even check the link about the UTXO set
UTXO DATA CANT LIE
its stuck in the blockchain.. its literally above the laws of truth that cant be edited..

but hey. when others who just say "he lies".. they can never actually back it up .. they just say "wrong because wrong"
wow such powerful proof.

ok you called me a liar.. so.. show me a UTXO set that has 20 million segwit addresses(40%)
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 40% segwit utility
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 30% segwit utility

the only parts people cant agree on is my method of explaining.
i try to keep it simple using analogies or rounding numbers for simple math demo purposes. then get some anal social drama queens try knitpicking my ELI-5 explanations without taking it all into context of simple explanation

Yes lies and you gaslight. It is all over the forum. Many people do not take you seriously anymore because they believe that you are a troll or a shill. I think that I'm the only one left that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, but do not mistake that for stupdity. I listen because I want to learn from all sides. But if there are lies and half truths here and there, I will call them out.

But if I made a mistake, then call me out. I will admit to have made it. I AM the stupid one, right?

i understand you are new to segwit and still learning. but these discussions with me devs and others have been going on for a couple years now. so yea sometimes when a non-dev gets involved and tries social drama distractions of name calling by poking the bear.. yea i bite..

You and the developers? I believe they avoid in having a discussion with you?

forced change!! have you not learned anything.

I know the ramifications. Read my OP. Did I say "Hurray! Do it!"?

also the data efficiency of transactions to bytes is not efficient using segwit
segwit signatures are 82bytes instead of 72
segwit addresses are a few bytes longer too

Start a topic in development and technical discussion. I want to see you debate with the real developers.

i have done.
but they just send in their non-dev buddies to social drama the topic to death.
but just so you know. devs have once they put their personal attack hats on the floor and start wearing their critical thinking caps. end up changing some code or plans.

the funny thing is. segwit and LN is not open dev desired. its actually contracted employed code that benefits financial investors that contracted them to make bitcoin LN compatible.

There we go again. Argue why it is technically inferior compared to your preferred bigger blocks approach, do not make all those accusations that are bordering on delusion. You are the smart one, right?

[audaciousbeing]

There is no doubt that SegWit is a great development that have brought sanity to the bitcoin space by reducing the transaction fees by a great length but for me, I don't think it worth the news about people should be coerced, begged or given some incentives in other to do the right thing. Its not that difficult. I have said it countless number of times, what most people are interested in is what would make more money in their wallet and not about the technicalities that surrounds SegWit itself. The time of high fees will still return just as being quoted in the open letter and when that happen, nobody would need to be encouraged to use SegWit. They will be forced to ask questions. I just hope that by that time, threads about discussion on transaction fees on the forum would be shredded immediately because there is time to be ready for the future now and only 40% are utilizing such opportunity.

[Pursuer]

(And yes, old 1x are still the proper way for cold storage or paper wallets. Safety 1st.)

wrong.
the proper way for cold storage is still (1) creating a private key offline on a clean computer with a legit software (2) printing that private key in a right way as in not leaving traces on printer memory, possibly encrypting the key, laminating the paper for endurance (3) storing multiple copies.

the address is only the type of output that was created. there is no difference between the keys that you are storing. you are still storing the same private key when it comes to cold storage.

you can even use the same tools such as bitaddress.org to generate the private key then get the public key and then very easily convert that public key (which will be 100% safe since it is public key not private key) to a bech32 address.

[franky1]

LN is not bitcoin
LN is not even blockchain
LN is a separate network. like ripple

bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible
litecoin had to change to be LN compatible

if LN was to be a sole feature of bitcoin then LN would get designed around bitcoin, not the other way round.

i know your new to this, but these discussions have gone on for years.
anyway
LN is not following the ethos of bitcoin or litecoin. LN has an ethos of their own. they will accept multiple coins and will try to lock funds in and try not to get people to broadcast transactions back to the chain..
they try promoting that as their benefit.
(using a factory(fortknox) means you give the unbroadcasted tx back to the factory and they resupply you with a new unbroadcast tx to re-migrate/balance your funds across the channels)
but if you follow golds history of bank notes you will see the whole game plan.
i know your probably going to twist it into how fabulous that sounds to never need to use the blockchain. but look how that turned out for people that had gold in 19th century, before banking it

remember: "if it aint your sole control private key, it aint your coin"

bitcoin in-> play with promissory notes--> crappy brass, nickel and copper coins(altcoins) out because they are cheaper and faster to transact with onchain
(when you hear bitcoin devs themselves say bitcoin is broke/cant scale.. so heres a bank-esq payment model...you know something is up)
how is LN inferior (i already mentioned the whole byte bloat of segwit inferiority. and how opcodes will add malleation in segwit)
1. its not a push payment. its a 'if other users are only, get everyone involved to sign' payment system
2. its not a pay direct. its a 'set up funds that go on average 5 different directions incase someones asleep'
3. its not community audited. thus tampering/thefts/blackmail do(and have) happen
4. because of routing, you have to share your funds with others
5. its not sole control. it co-signed
as for the employment contract of november 2016 with a deadline of november2017..
check the dates of the Bip
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg04294.html
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
"For Bitcoin mainnet, the BIP9 starttime will be midnight 15 november 2016 UTC (Epoch timestamp 1479168000) and BIP9 timeout will be midnight 15 november 2017 UTC (Epoch timestamp 1510704000). "
oh and by the way

check their payday
https://www.crunchbase.com/funding_round/blockstream-undisclosed--0e4380a7
PS they wanted their funds in BTC so the investors had to buy $25m of coin... now go check the market chart for mid november 2017 (heres a hint the buyup started november 12th. finished in november.. (everything after that was just community reaction)

as for calling me troll shill 'wrong because wrong'. thats just because they cant actually counter me using hard data so resort to name calling and insults.. yea sometimes when they poke i bite. but i do try to entertain them with statistics and data which they cant counter. so they resort to putting their head in the sand

i even use data direct from the source itself. like sipa and lukeJR and gmax
P.S (the bilateral split.. thats a term gmaxwell used.. not me)

i have tried to ask them to learn a few things before replying or sitting back and having a coffee, relaxing and think of things critically before replying. i think even you are aware that i try. yea i dont say it in a cuddly way. but doesnt mean it wasnt said

but a couple years on .. and some dont know the basic concepts of consensus, multisig anyonecanspend which has been the main things they argue about and pretend dont apply to things like segwit LN and bitcoin. (facepalm)

but in the end its their own ignorance harming only them. but when they try entering a discussion and dont actually show data and statistics and just point fingers at altcoins and personalities and call names.. again they are making themselves look bad as people who care about bitcoin.. and their only goal is to look good for their lil boys club of like minded cabin fever group

im not interested in their kardashian drama they read about on reddit. social name calling and pointing at altcoins is not related in anyway to protecting the bitcoin network. but its the only rebuttle they have

i care about the network and the control paradigm being played out that is reducing bitcoins utility and ethos into a currency that needs co-managed banking (facepalm)

anyway i do hope you can brush off the wishy washy mindsets that want co-managed accounts. and instead realise that bitcoin can scale onchain. and that legacy transactions can offer more transactions per byte if they just removed the 1mb wall wishy washy trick code

[colvis]

I concur that a constrained transformation will be problematic, however I can perceive any reason why they are doing it and props to them for stepping up with regards to this.

I think the main problem here is instruction. I would bet that a noteworthy extent, likely even a lion's share, of Bitcoin clients don't comprehend the distinction among heritage and Segwit, and even less know the contrast somewhere in the range of Bech32 and P2SH. I was surely blameworthy of this when I originally got associated with crypto - it's simple just to purchase from a trade and send to a wallet without having extremely any thought regarding what you are doing

[Kakmakr]

I predicted that we will have this kind of Betamax vs VHS scenario in the future and the longer this is drawn out, the bigger the impact will be. Knowing this, we should learn from what happened with Betamax vs VHS and in the end accept that the supporting industry would decide what the consumers will use. <Most of them do not know the difference> 

A consortium of supporting services will decide on one of the implementations and the consumers will follow. 

[BrewMaster]

LN is a separate network. like ripple
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible

now that's just absurd.
LN is not completely a separate network. it is a network strongly connected to bitcoin network. and calling it "like ripple" is just dumb. on Ripple network everything is centralized. even if it looks any other way. you holding private keys to Ripple addresses means nothing since they can spend your coins if they wanted to like they did once before. but you holding your bitcoin private keys and using LN means you are in control.

as for "change", LN could have been built on top of bitcoin that was before easily but the problem was the malleability that made it insecure and that much harder to use LN in a safe way.

[franky1]

LN is a separate network. like ripple
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible

now that's just absurd.
LN is not completely a separate network. it is a network strongly connected to bitcoin network. and calling it "like ripple" is just dumb. on Ripple network everything is centralized. even if it looks any other way. you holding private keys to Ripple addresses means nothing since they can spend your coins if they wanted to like they did once before. but you holding your bitcoin private keys and using LN means you are in control.

as for "change", LN could have been built on top of bitcoin that was before easily but the problem was the malleability that made it insecure and that much harder to use LN in a safe way.

1. LN is not bitcoin.. OTHER COINS WILL USE IT. thats the true reason for it. its a multicoin network.
they are just screaming the bitcoin brand to garner support and financial backing to pay the devs to get it. its like saying a phone case is Apple yet its design fits samsung and other brand too.. they just want to tag themselves to bitcoin.
i guess yo missed the chatter about litecoin and other coins using it..

2 it is its own network a separate network the word network is literally spelled out in its name to emphasize it.
it has no blockchain. and its not a service purely for bitcoin. its purpos is not to give you 100% control it uses multisigs. multisigs is multiple parties co-managing funds and ending each others permission(signature)

2. new opcodes being added to LN actually re introduce malleability
and before you deny that. the LN devs are fully aware of it and admit it themselves. they even want to rename the opcode to make it obvious thats its risky to use

i am getting so astonished that so many talk about something but have yet to actually research it beyond some reddit glossy leaflet style promotional script

[BrewMaster]

LN is a separate network. like ripple
bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible

now that's just absurd.
LN is not completely a separate network. it is a network strongly connected to bitcoin network. and calling it "like ripple" is just dumb. on Ripple network everything is centralized. even if it looks any other way. you holding private keys to Ripple addresses means nothing since they can spend your coins if they wanted to like they did once before. but you holding your bitcoin private keys and using LN means you are in control.

as for "change", LN could have been built on top of bitcoin that was before easily but the problem was the malleability that made it insecure and that much harder to use LN in a safe way.

1. LN is not bitcoin.. OTHER COINS WILL USE IT. thats the true reason for it. its a multicoin network.
they are just screaming the bitcoin brand to garner support and financial backing to pay the devs to get it. its like saying a phone case is Apple yet its design fits samsung and other brand too.. they just want to tag themselves to bitcoin.
i guess yo missed the chatter about litecoin and other coins using it..

2 it is its own network a separate network the word network is literally spelled out in its name to emphasize it.
it has no blockchain. and its not a service purely for bitcoin. its purpos is not to give you 100% control it uses multisigs. multisigs is multiple parties co-managing funds and ending each others permission(signature)

3. new opcodes being added to LN actually re introduce malleability
and before you deny that. the LN devs are fully aware of it and admit it themselves. they even want to rename the opcode to make it obvious thats its risky to use

i am getting so astonished that so many talk about something but have yet to actually research it beyond some reddit glossy leaflet style promotional script

1&2. LN is not bitcoin but a network that is build on top of bitcoin and relies on bitcoin and the blockchain of it. the fact that other altcoins use it doesn't make it any less true.
it uses multisig but you still are in full control of your funds. you can take it out anytime you wanted to. that "permission" that you need to get your bitcoin's out is granted to you when you open the channel and when the balance changes like after spending or receiving funds and you can use the already signed transaction to "cash out" or make the on-chain transaction closing the channel and taking your money out.

3. i don't know about it to deny or admit

i am not visiting reddit by the way...

[franky1]

1&2. LN is not bitcoin but a network that is build on top of bitcoin and relies on bitcoin and the blockchain of it. the fact that other altcoins use it doesn't make it any less true.
it uses multisig but you still are in full control of your funds. you can take it out anytime you wanted to. that "permission" that you need to get your bitcoin's out is granted to you when you open the channel and when the balance changes like after spending or receiving funds and you can use the already signed transaction to "cash out" or make the on-chain transaction closing the channel and taking your money out.

3. i don't know about it to deny or admit

i am not visiting reddit by the way...

1&2 coinbase is not bitcoin but a service built ontop of bitcoin. they also use other altcoins.
LN and coinbase can survive without bitcoin. they simply just trade litecoins instead if something happened to bitcoin.
it is not dependant on bitcoin.

litcoin traders will use it and never touch bitcoin and it functions. OMG shock horror, right. litecoin using LN and not need bitcoin..

bitcoin nodes could if LN became too malicious not use LN..
i get what your saying, they want it to be tagged as the solution/child of bitcoin (lots of fame and promo oppertunities by doing so.). but thats like a bank saying its gold... and we all know all banks do these days is play with paper.

as for the belief that you have 100% control you dont. you say that you can cash out.. well your co-signer can too..
and guess what. they can send your previous transaction out. because they needed to sign a previous one of yours.. and then they can because you gave them the revocation. they can then send out a current one with the revocation and spend the funds that you think you own(but never did).. and lets jsut call it what it is.. "chargeback".

you are in a mutually assured distruction multisig where you are both tied to each other.. with which devs are still trying to patch up.. lots of buggy opportunities to rip each other off with due to the mutual relationship of LN

and LN devs know of the issues its why they warn you to only use low amounts as there is risks you can lose what you put in
if you had 100% you cant lose.. obviously

i find it funny people think you retain 100% control.
if you ever did then the other person wont know if your spending funds secretly elsewhere..
it needs to be co-signed to prevent you spending elsewhere.

but anyway. research watchtowers and factories and you will see the % control decrease even further.

[DooMAD]

i find it funny people think you retain 100% control.
if you ever did then the other person wont know if your spending funds secretly elsewhere..
it needs to be co-signed to prevent you spending elsewhere.

And apart from "herp derp blocksize increase", how would you have created a better LN?  You keep saying that everything about Lightning is wrong (and many disagree with you, but that's not the point).  What do you have to offer to make LN better?  Clearly Lightning is not going away, so what constructive contributions can you offer in your infinite wisdom?  If all you can do is suggest things that don't help improve Lightning, what function do you serve? 

Yes, part of the security model is that both parties have to agree on what the current state is.  Would you prefer it if the other party could send you transactions you hadn't agreed to in an attemp to trick you into spending from an older state?  Is that how LN would work if franky1 was in charge?  Of course not.  So stop trying to paint useful security features as a flaw, you manipulative weasel.

[franky1]

i find it funny people think you retain 100% control.
if you ever did then the other person wont know if your spending funds secretly elsewhere..
it needs to be co-signed to prevent you spending elsewhere.

And apart from "herp derp blocksize increase", how would you have created a better LN?

i know we are all frustrated. we all thought we found the red pill to the banking matrix. to then be told there is a wonderland for alice but it just leads back to how banks work. i understand the frustrations.

i understand the path of frustrations
banks have broke use bitcoin
bitcoins broke use LN
LN's broke but bitcoin is broke and expensive use an alt (thats next stage: dont get ur gold out fortknox. have some nickel coins instead)

yes i know the devs are pushing people in circles and into new rabbit holes that promise wonderlands leading to more rabbit holes

maybe first its best you use LN. and not for the one time utopian scenario of everyone needing to be online is online for that 1 time blissful experience of seeing them say yes in milliseconds. but seeing the flaws.

LN is not a sole feature for only bitcoin.
imagine it this way.
your a stunt driver. you have a bitcoin car. but you want to drive a lightning car and test it out. it has all the bitcoin and litecoin and other altcoin sponsorship stickers on the lightning car and has been promoted as the fastest car there is
but to drive it. you need to put your bitcoin car up as collatoral for insurance purposes and lock it up in a factory.

and now you can drive the lightning car... but remember its not your car. your driving a different car and have a navigator sat beside you.
your car is locked away in a factory of lightning.. it too is not on the lightning track or able to move on the bitcoin network.

the car your driving is not on the bitcoin road network. its on its own separate track.
you no longer have the only set of keys to your bitcoin car.

actually play it out in real world scenario of a month.
preplanning spending habits to know whats best to deposit.
spreading it across channels
knowing others will spend your funds because your on their route
people not always being online
people not always being well funded

the LN dev admit there are flaws. its about time the community admit it to and stop promoting it the wonderland to alice.

remember its just a vehicle. and other people will use that vehicle. people from litecoin town will use the vehicle.

as for those that think bitcoin is broke the whole emotion that bitcoin needs a different network is a massive facepalm.
if you want to concede and think bitcoin is broke and needs another network. the go play with another network.

meanwhile those that actually care about the bitcoin network will concentrate on the bitcoin network. not trying to make other networks better, but call out where bitcoin devs are causing issues

so before hitting the reply in frustration at me. take a step back. have some coffee. and relax.
actually think about these questions.

a. do you want to concede that bitcoin is broke and needs people to move away from bitcoin and use other networks like LN rootstock and bakkt
b. would you rather have all the devs return and only innovate the bitcoin blockchain for pure bitcoin mainnet utility. or promote other networks and let bitcoin stagnate to make these other networks look good

take a deeper step back and really ask
is the whole bloat up a new tx format to peal off a few bytes and hide them elsewhere.. and then 4* legacy tx's to make the pealable tx format look better and all the other convoluted code any less 'herpa durpa' then just allowing segwit AND legacy to fully use the 4mb area the devs now say is ok...

get rid of the 4x wishy washy tweaking and just treat the bytes of a legacy as a bytes. and the bytes of a full segwit as bytes and just let the network have extra capacity. upto a lean 15k+ instead of 6k+ and then grow the capacity over time.
(unless your going to cry that livestreaming and playing HD online gaming running around, firing at targets while also on teamspeak is broke because millions of people cant.. blah blah blah false arguments about internet limitations and computer limitations of pretending we are in the 1990's floppydisk era)

P.S
you can buy coffee without needing multiple co-sign channels and without multiple tx's onchain.. its called buy a starbucks giftcard as then your just in a simple partnership with stabucks spendin what you need without the headache of others raiding your funds on your route or needing to watch raw tx data incase the partner makes you sign something by mistake

but hey if you want to keep thinking bitcoin is dead and the only option is other networks. you go play that game.

[DooMAD]

we all thought we found the red pill to the banking matrix. to then be told there is a wonderland for alice but it just leads back to how banks work.

Lightning.  Is.  Not.  Even.  Close.  To.  How.  Banks.  Work.

Your confusion stems from the fact you haven't got the faintest clue how Lightning works.

the LN dev admit there are flaws. its about time the community admit it to and stop promoting it the wonderland to alice.

You're the only person dealing in absolutes.  We're all saying development is going to continue so that both Bitcoin and LN incrementally improve over time.  You're the one who says it's all-or-nothing and everything has to be on-chain or bust.  

remember its just a vehicle. and other people will use that vehicle. people from litecoin town will use the vehicle.

That's good.  Interoperability between chains is a feature, not a bug.  Atomic swaps will be good.  Why do you keep arguing good things are bad?

as for those that think bitcoin is broke the whole emotion that bitcoin needs a different network is a massive facepalm.

You're the one saying it's broke.  We think it's coming along just fine.

if you want to concede and think bitcoin is broke and needs another network. the go play with another network.

You go play with the "other" networks.  There are plenty of crappy forks where your primitive mindset would be more than welcome.  

meanwhile those that actually care about the bitcoin network will concentrate on the bitcoin network. not trying to make other networks better, but call out where bitcoin devs are causing issues

Development to improve the base protocol continues.  Again, you're the only one arguing all-or-nothing.  Some developers work on Bitcoin because that's what they freely choose to work on.  Some are developing different Lightning implementations because that's what they freely choose to work on.  You are the one claiming that development on the base protocol is being stalled, which is a total fabrication on your part.
  

would you rather have all the devs return and only innovate the bitcoin blockchain for pure bitcoin mainnet utility.

You can't force them to "return", you fascist twunt.  Permissionless.  They can do whatever they like.  

is the whole bloat up a new tx format to peal off a few bytes and hide them elsewhere.. and then 4* legacy tx's to make the pealable tx format look better and all the other convoluted code is any less 'herpa durpa' then just allowing segwit AND legacy to fully use the 4mb area the devs now say is ok...

You have BCH for that.  You constantly fail to answer every time I ask you:

What is the point in having two BCHs?  

You want larger blocks?  You've got them.  Go play with them.  Leave us in peace.  The scientific approach is to test multiple theories, not repeat the same idea on every fork.  If you think the "real" Bitcoin is purely on-chain, use that network that likes to pretend it's the real Bitcoin (but doesn't have the numbers behind it to back that claim).  
 

but hey if you want to kep thinking bitcoin is dead and the only option is other networks. you go play that game.

The only thing that's dead around here is your credibility.

[franky1]

anyway back to the topic now the distraction of other networks is handled.

why need 100% adoption
why need everyone using segwit keys.

for full nodes (proper bitcoin data validators and archivers) segwit does not offer a byte per tx advantage

i get it. if you wanna lock funds up in another network then yea use a segwit key and go play

but for day to day onchain utility where real full data is fully validatd and fully stored. why need 100% segwit adoption.
just remove the 4x legacy wishy washy herpa derp and declare the 4mb block as open single box 4mb space for legacy and segwit to coexist in full. and have practical amount of more transaction capacity without the herpa derp

[DooMAD]

anyway back to the topic now the distraction of other networks is handled.

Yes, now that your LN arguments have been obliterated, let's get back to SegWit and breadwallet.

Permissionless.  Breadwallet devs are free to design a client that only uses bech32 if that's what they believe the best course of action is.  If users don't want to have bech32 addresses, they are free to continue to run older versions of breadwallet, or even a totally different client.  

You are free to not use SegWit.  I'm sure you must know that because no one has put a gun to your head to make you use it.  It is always entirely up to you what code you install and run.  The choice is yours.  However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  If you can't abide by that, again, feel free to use other networks where SegWit has not been activated.  We won't miss you.

[franky1]

the LN dev admit there are flaws. its about time the community admit it to and stop promoting it the wonderland to alice.

You're the only person dealing in absolutes.  We're all saying development is going to continue so that both Bitcoin and LN incrementally improve over time.  You're the one who says it's all-or-nothing and everything has to be on-chain or bust.  

remember its just a vehicle. and other people will use that vehicle. people from litecoin town will use the vehicle.

That's good.  Interoperability between chains is a feature, not a bug.  Atomic swaps will be good.  Why do you keep arguing good things are bad?

others say its utopia..
also others say its a bitcoin feature.

its a separate network.
again why are we discussing why other networks are better or worse..
talk about bitcoin and think about bitcoin network. stop emphasising other networks and promoting them.

again if your a bitcoiner you wan he bitcoin network to be strong. but if you want to talk about other networkers then your a crypto fan.

interoperability of another network. not something done on the bitcoin network.
again your promoting features of other networks.. you might aswell deposit into shapeshift. you then dont have to worry about splitting funds over multiple channels or having others raid your funds because they are on your route.. you can swap coins with a co-partner all you want.


the all or nothing. is the bitcoin network vs other networks.
a bitcoiner wants things actually on the bitcoin network.
if your ok with other networks and features being better on other networks. then go play with other networks.

i do find your comments about sorting out the bitcoin network being "herpa derpa" but defending other networks amusing

as for the respect of segwit users.
read my posts
i said open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity
i never said lets downgrade and then only have 2-4mb legacy only.

yea i revealed segwit byte per tx inefficiency as viewed by the viewpoint of a real full validator and data archiver node. because the fact is people under promise and over promote. and utopianise something.. it needs correcting

and yes if people want to peal the banana. they can use lite wallets too.
but yea. now you are just trying to poke the bear to distract the topic.

bitcoiners should not use enforcement technique to push one side away. if they want a central enforced network. follow their own advice and they move to another network.

i am not enforcing crap. i am not releasing my own node to the network. thus i can predict u biting your lip ready to reply to make it sound like i am..

but all i am doing is waking people up the the under delivered over promised narrative of some. who are desparate to advertise other networks and even more desparate of not letting the community use real consensus.

[franky1]

anyway back to the topic now the distraction of other networks is handled.

Yes, now that your LN arguments have been obliterated, let's get back to SegWit and breadwallet.

Permissionless.  Breadwallet devs are free to design a client that only uses bech32 if that's what they believe the best course of action is.  If users don't want to have bech32 addresses, they are free to continue to run older versions of breadwallet, or even a totally different client.  

You are free to not use SegWit.  I'm sure you must know that because no one has put a gun to your head to make you use it.  It is always entirely up to you what code you install and run.  The choice is yours.  However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  If you can't abide by that, again, feel free to use other networks where SegWit has not been activated.  We won't miss you.

typical reaction
let certain players mandatory control the path of bitcoin. tell people the only option is to use another network

segwit is not 100% community supported
proven by the months of less than 40% activation flag requiring a mandatory action
proven by the months of less than under 24%  utilisation requiring a open letter call for enforcement

but them segwit fans want to push "enforcment" (mandatory upgrade or go play with another network)
segwit didnt get activatd via true community consensus. it got activated by the mandaty consensus bypass (buzzworded by devs themselves bilateral split)

sorry but if you are ok with bitcoin becoming a dev monarchy. then you missed the point of the ethos of bitcoin.

surprisingly though its you that love and want people to use other networks. and say innovating bitcoin network is herpa derpa

[DooMAD]

others say its utopia

No.  No one has said that.  

As with all of your other lies and manipulations, it's literally just you claiming that people are saying it's utopia.  It's just you claiming that people think Bitcoin is broken.  It's just you claiming that on-chain development is being stalled.  How about you stop making claims that further reveal you to be a lying troll?

again why are we discussing why other networks are better or worse..

Because you keep derailing perfectly good threads.  You are the one claiming the current direction we're moving in is making BTC worse. 

segwit is not 100% community supported

Learn to read.  I didn't say it was.  I'll repeat what I said:

However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  

There are enough people who do support it to make you and your troll screed insignificant.  If enough people felt strongly enough to have opposed SegWit, we'd all be using BCH by now.  And clearly that isn't happening.  I'm sorry reality can't be more accommodating for you.