Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2019, 01:41:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet  (Read 313 times)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1500



View Profile
September 27, 2018, 11:55:49 PM
 #41

There are enough people who do support it to make you and your troll screed insignificant.

mandatory bilateral split
research it
P.s read previous posts.. under 40% has been mentioned many time
P.P.s  segwit has not made hard drive bytes more efficient to increase tx count per byte
P.P.P.s  transaction counts have gone DOWN on average. less people are using bitcoin.. not more. less transactors.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
1571622076
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571622076

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571622076
Reply with quote  #2

1571622076
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571622076
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571622076

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571622076
Reply with quote  #2

1571622076
Report to moderator
1571622076
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571622076

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571622076
Reply with quote  #2

1571622076
Report to moderator
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1352


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
September 28, 2018, 12:12:45 AM
 #42

mandatory bilateral split
research it

You keep saying that as though it matters...

Maybe one day you'll realise it doesn't and that you're pretty much the only one who seems to care.

Repeat if in every thread for the rest of time if you like, it's not changing anything.  Much like the blockchain itself, history can't be undone.

And even if it could be undone, do you honestly think we're going to agree to roll it all back to how it was and then invite Roger Ver over for tea and sodding biscuits?   Roll Eyes

You are literally broken in the head.  Seek help.




franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1500



View Profile
September 28, 2018, 12:29:39 AM
Last edit: September 28, 2018, 03:26:08 AM by franky1
 #43

Repeat if in every thread for the rest of time if you like, it's not changing anything.  Much like the blockchain itself, history can't be undone.

And even if it could be undone, do you honestly think we're going to agree to roll it all back to how it was

history cannot change. but reminding people of history ensures they remember it if history tries repeating itself.
and if you do not care about mandatory threats and controlled upgrades that bypass consensus. then you have revealed much more about your lack of care for bitcoin and you more concern of promoting people should use other networks

and then invite Roger Ver over for tea and sodding biscuits?   Roll Eyes
You are literally broken in the head.  Seek help.

and oh look you mention the social kardashian drama of someone thats not a dev and not even part of the bitcoin network, and then also including an insult..
 ........ typical response

anyway, moving on
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.

time you did go sleep. tomorrow reign in your emotions to be concerned with the bitcoin network and how people on the bitcoin network are trying to enforce things using mandatory dated explicit consensus bypassing crap without mentioning how other networks are better or second options

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
NeuroticFish
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1340


There are no mistakes. Only opportunities wasted.


View Profile
September 28, 2018, 05:24:10 AM
 #44

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.

The difference comes when you redeem the paper wallet. 1x address will surely work with all the software and you can surely send the money everywhere you want.
And as a bonus, you can also get money for a beer from the various forks.

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.

This is interesting and I didn't know, I will study this.

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
September 28, 2018, 06:01:08 AM
 #45

LN is not bitcoin

Yes and no. The Lightning Network is nothing but a network of user-generated channels that needs one Bitcoin on-chain transaction to open a channel and another one to close it.

Transactions are stored locally until a user decides to close the channel and broadcast its latest state like an ordinary on-chain transaction.

Quote
LN is not even blockchain

No one is claiming that it is.

Quote
LN is a separate network. like ripple

No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain.

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

Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1352


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
September 28, 2018, 11:47:42 AM
Last edit: September 28, 2018, 01:02:34 PM by DooMAD
 #46

and if you do not care about mandatory threats and controlled upgrades that bypass consensus. then you have revealed much more about your lack of care for bitcoin and you more concern of promoting people should use other networks

So you continue to maintain this total fiction that "developers control the network"?  Even though the code they produce has no power unless people choose to run it?  Cool, destroy those tattered remnants of your credibility that little bit further.  Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of consensus can recognise that you are talking nonsense.  Users and miners made this happen.  They made that choice.  Developers just provided them with the tools to do so.  So blame the users and miners (except you can't, because it doesn't fit your narrative).  Consensus made it happen, so blame consensus rather than making ludicrous claims that it was "bypassed".  That's what happens if you run incompatible code and you don't have sufficient numbers behind you.  It's designed to work that way.  If you were forked off the network as a result, that's on you.

If I didn't care about Bitcoin, I wouldn't keep challenging your manipulative FUD posts.  You think you can tell developers, users and miners what they can or can't do in a permissionless system.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think it's vital for everyone to be able to make their own decisions.  You think developers should be forced to stop working on off-chain solutions and drag them kicking and screaming back to the base protocol when that's not what they want to work on.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think developers are free to create anything their vision and talent can manifest, even if it's an alternative client that some would claim is an "attack", "hostile takeover", "coup", whatever (much like how you claim LN is an attack on Bitcoin).  You think you can foist undesirable changes onto nodes that do not want them.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think nodes are vital to the network's resilience and we should not make things prohibitively costly for them.  

SegWit is opt-in.  Bech32 is opt-in.  Lightning is opt-in.  However, imposing greater on-chain throughput onto nodes that do not want greater on-chain throughput is NOT opt-in.  Why do you think you get to force your authoritarian views on others when there are already other chains that cater to your wishes?  That's what you're doing when you insist that we "open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity".  There are blockchains where nodes freely choose to accept greater on-chain throughput, but that's not this chain.  It would be advantageous for you to use a chain where people share your views.  Stop pretending that you respect the decision this chain has made when all you want to do is overturn it.

Also, it takes two sides to have a disagreement.  There would not have been a fork at all if everyone agreed.  Some chose to run the code that adhered to consensus on the BTC chain, while others chose to run code that did not adhere to consensus on the BTC chain.  Sounds like freedom to me.  Why do you not apportion blame equally to both sides?  Clearly we could not reach an agreement where everyone was satisfied.  And it seems like you still can't find one long after the rest of us have moved on from this matter.  And be under no illusion that we have absolutely moved on.  So it's far better if everyone moves forward in a direction they are happy with, even if that means parting ways.  It gives people greater freedom and choice that way.

Consensus means you run the code you want to run and you will be automatically matched with other people running compatible code.  You will then build a blockchain together and ideally reap the benefits of any network effects you jointly produce.  That's how this works.  You can either adhere to consensus or you fork away and form your own consensus with others.  Whatever you believe the developers and the code did or didn't do, it doesn't really matter anymore.  It's moot and it's done.  The simple fact is that people chose to run that code and consequences happened which you seriously need to get the hell over.


tomorrow reign in your emotions to be concerned with the bitcoin network and how people on the bitcoin network are trying to enforce things

Said the fascist trying to enforce things.   Roll Eyes

Your ideas are not compatible with permissionless freedom.  I say that without emotion.  You are being emotional.  Stop whining about things you can't change and move on.

Also, start a new thread for this if you feel the need to continue.  This topic is supposed to be about breadwallet.  If users don't like the change developers have made, usage of breadwallet will naturally decrease.  It's entirely up to the users, as it should be.  There is no "forced change", as you were alluding to when you first started derailing the thread:

forced change!! have you not learned anything.

Name the users that have had a gun put to their heads by the breadwallet devs to force them to run this new code.  Name one.  Breadwallet may have applied pressure to some businesses to implement bech32 support, but no users are being forced to run code they don't want to run.


franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1500



View Profile
September 28, 2018, 03:18:03 PM
Last edit: September 28, 2018, 03:52:19 PM by franky1
 #47

Quote
LN is a separate network. like ripple

No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain.

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

Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix.

1. what you have yet to realise is that LN is a network that can be used without the bitcoin blockchain.
because LN allows litecoin transactions and other coins..
lets call LN an island. it allows many nations. its just right now its occupied by bitcoiners exploring the land .. it doesnt mean its only for bitcoiners. if bitcoiners leave. other nations can survive as they are allowed on the island.

2. segwit is a compatability with LN fix... maybe you should realise new/reactivated opcodes allow malleability with segwit transactions.. the devs know it. they even discussed renaming an opcode to include a warning

3. segwit is also a X4 weight manipulation. to make old transaction type appear worse then segwit when its actually segwit that are more bloated.. byte for byte
take away the 4x scale factor wishy washy herpaderp code which legacy transactions are made victim of... and that will allow legacy AND segwit to sit side by side using the full4mb weight and allowing more transactions per block than the current herpa derp wishy washy limitation

4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN)

anyway. seeing as most rebuttles are from people that dont read code, and just want to defend coders rather than the network

.. i know standard reply.. if i dont like the changes i can F**k off to another network (typical BORDER control reply) i guess people dont read that bitcoin meant to be borderless and should not be told to use other networks outside the border
my point is get rid of the wall that is limiting population growth and stop advertising other things outside the border as the only option people have

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Pursuer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1160


Where is my ring of blades...


View Profile
September 29, 2018, 03:29:04 AM
 #48

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.

The difference comes when you redeem the paper wallet. 1x address will surely work with all the software and you can surely send the money everywhere you want.
And as a bonus, you can also get money for a beer from the various forks.

yeah, if you are talking about convenience it is somewhat correct since the best wallets such as Electrum and Core are already supporting it. and if it is the possible monetary benefits such as forks then again somewhat right since these forks aren't happening anymore and usually after a couple of them, the value of new one is not high enough to make you bother claiming them.
but if we are talking about security, then there is no difference.

Quote
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.

This is interesting and I didn't know, I will study this.

the steps are even the same. private key is the same, public key is the same, the functions you do on public key is the same (sha256 then ripmd160) then the different step is after that. if you encode this result with base58 you will get an address with 1, if you encode it with bech32 you get an address with bc1. and you can convert these to each other.
but receiving funds in them is not the same, you will need a different transaction to spend them.

EMPTY
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 813


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
October 01, 2018, 05:32:08 AM
 #49

Quote
LN is a separate network. like ripple

No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain.

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

Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix.

1. what you have yet to realise is that LN is a network that can be used without the bitcoin blockchain.
because LN allows litecoin transactions and other coins..
lets call LN an island. it allows many nations. its just right now its occupied by bitcoiners exploring the land .. it doesnt mean its only for bitcoiners. if bitcoiners leave. other nations can survive as they are allowed on the island.

The Lightning Network is an open source project that other cryptocurrencies are welcome to use. What are you afraid off? That users can use Lightning for cross blockchain transfers without the exchanges to act as the middleman? Haha.

Quote
2. segwit is a compatability with LN fix...

No. I believe specifically Lightning was not in the discussion when Segwit was proposed. But off-chain layers may be already discussed.

Quote
maybe you should realise new/reactivated opcodes allow malleability with segwit transactions.. the devs know it. they even discussed renaming an opcode to include a warning

Show us the link to that claim.

Quote
3. segwit is also a X4 weight manipulation. to make old transaction type appear worse then segwit when its actually segwit that are more bloated.. byte for byte
take away the 4x scale factor wishy washy herpaderp code which legacy transactions are made victim of... and that will allow legacy AND segwit to sit side by side using the full4mb weight and allowing more transactions per block than the current herpa derp wishy washy limitation

What are you talking about? What's "wishy washy"? The fact that Segwit increased transactions per block, and was done through an inclusive, backwards-compatible soft fork was a job well done by the Core developers.

Quote
4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN)

Will it make the way for trading cryptocurrencies decentrally without centralized exchanges?

Quote
anyway. seeing as most rebuttles are from people that dont read code, and just want to defend coders rather than the network


Would you want us to side with you instead? Hahaha.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
Herbert2020
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1126



View Profile
October 01, 2018, 05:40:39 AM
 #50

4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN)

this doesn't sound right.
at human readable level:
1. single key (P2PKH) litecoin: L bitcoin:1
2. multi key (P2SH) litecoin: M bitcoin: 3
so the difference was already there, we didn't need a new address format.

at blockchain/code level they are the same script!

bech32 didn't change anything. at human readable level there is the same difference as before and at code level they are still the same script as before too, which you can not differentiate.
they are both 0014<hash160> and you won't be able to say if it is a LTC Bech32 or BTC Bech32

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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