SegWit not Bitcoin?

[Paashaas]

in my opinion, segwit has a big influence on a blockchain transaction. segwit comes to alleviate the scalability of bitcoin which has long been a major obstacle in distributed ledgers such as Bitcoin.

The scalability of this block is the same as it happens and becomes an obstacle also in crypto variants other than Bitcoin, or what is called Altcoin.

segwit is a basic consensus, and will be followed by full nodes in the network.

We have Segwit because of Nakamoto consensus. This is how Bitcoin update works but Frank and bigblockers does not respecting it.

Will they shitting on Schnorr signatures when ready?

[1713923602]

1713923602

[1713923602]

1713923602

[1713923602]

1713923602

[1713923602]

1713923602

[franky1]

LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin.

The "Lightning Network" is an off-chain layer, which you can use to make transactions in multiple coins. Plus no, Lightning is not a network of "multiple coins". That is misinformation.

your so stuck in a propaganda myth
try researching the truth.. heres a keyword
chainhash

Where's the propaganda? Where is the "myth".

FTFY

myth= look at the purple

it allows the LN network to know what chain (network/coin) the payment/channel is involved in. its what allows litecoin, vertcoin and others to use LN.
its why LN lets litecoin use it and also allows atomic swaps to occur
LN is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate network for multiple coins to use.
the "off-chain" is the mis information.. its a way to be subtle that LN is a non blockchain network

Yes I have already heard of that, but it is a long way from where Lightning is today.
But wouldn't you say that that is good for trading between coins in a trust-minimized way, decentrally? Wouldn't that reduce our need for centralized exchanges that require KYC/AML? Wouldn't the be better for our freedom?
I do not see how it is bad.

LN allows other coins that same utility right now.

right now nothing is stopping people in
litecoin from locking up LTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
bitcoin from locking up BTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
vertcoin from locking up VTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'

as for the atomic swap. yes that part is along way away as thats the part where factory/watchtower(masternodes) really will be needed.
funny part though. to have masternodes monitoring multipl chains. is like saying users cant handle one chain so a no-chain network is needed.. but inevitably full LN nodes will be multiple chain handling...
see the hypocrisy
EG man cant handle 1 wife, so lets develop a network with no wife so he can play with prostitutes(channels)... years later.. man need to monitor 4 wives to then play with prostitutes
or just risk a prostitiute(cellphone lite wallet) app and trust the prostitutes pimp whos got 4 wives to watch over the payments

[franky1]

We have Segwit because of Nakamoto consensus. This is how Bitcoin update works but Frank and bigblockers does not respecting it.

Will they shitting on Schnorr signatures when ready?

what you and your chums need to understand is. having hope, faith and loyalty of a king and promoting a utopian dream and hoping everyone will be loyalist to a king is not what bitcoin was dsigned for.

schnorr has negatives. and trying to do personal attacks to hide the negatives is not helping anyone.
yes schnorr has negatives.

1. it hides how many parties are involved in a multiparty smart contract
2. when signing. even those involved wont know who signed it.
3. imagine some users are prompted with a smart contract under the belief thats its a 2-of-2 co-sign address.. but the reality is its actually a 2-of-3 smart contract and the other person has 2 keys and you only have 1.. guess what, chances are the other person will sign off funds to themselves when the 'pot' gets big enough that greed takes over morals

[Wind_FURY]

LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin.

The "Lightning Network" is an off-chain layer, which you can use to make transactions in multiple coins. Plus no, Lightning is not a network of "multiple coins". That is misinformation.

your so stuck in a propaganda myth
try researching the truth.. heres a keyword
chainhash

Where's the propaganda? Where is the "myth".

FTFY

myth= look at the purple

That does not answer the question because it might be all made up in your head.

it allows the LN network to know what chain (network/coin) the payment/channel is involved in. its what allows litecoin, vertcoin and others to use LN.
its why LN lets litecoin use it and also allows atomic swaps to occur
LN is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate network for multiple coins to use.
the "off-chain" is the mis information.. its a way to be subtle that LN is a non blockchain network

Yes I have already heard of that, but it is a long way from where Lightning is today.
But wouldn't you say that that is good for trading between coins in a trust-minimized way, decentrally? Wouldn't that reduce our need for centralized exchanges that require KYC/AML? Wouldn't the be better for our freedom?
I do not see how it is bad.

(masternodes)

But first, what is your definition of "master nodes"? Because you and I might not be having the same definition of what they are.

[jseverson]

Well yes, you can send money to a segwit address, doing it the other way around is more challenging...
I'm totally not a fan of segwit, in fact I think it's awful. But SegWit is Bitcoin because that's what the market decided after the fork, and I respect the market's decision.

How is it challenging? Legacy addresses can receive transactions from Segwit addresses with no problem. The only issue that typically arises is wallet compatibility, or lack thereof. Am I missing something?

But yeah, even if you don't respect it, you can always choose not to opt-in, which is nice.

[franky1]

But first, what is your definition of "master nodes"? Because you and I might not be having the same definition of what they are.

well based on the altcoins that buzzworded the term... those systems would have
full(deemed as lower class to master) nodes that validated and archive small network/region
and then
masternode that validates the combined networks

eg some alts have fullnodes validating/archiving ID data on one network, another that validates american users and their currency on another network. another that validates european users and their currency on another network

and a masternode that accesses monitors and validates all of them

i personally didnt invent the terminology and there are many cases where some buzzwords are completely wrong in regards to the definition
EG
in the UK. a master can be both the main top guy... and also the child of a family
the thing that holds keys that unlock and asset. should be a keyring not a wallet
so i say this. before you start pretending i advocate such things. and before you pretend i termed them

[Wind_FURY]

But first, what is your definition of "master nodes"? Because you and I might not be having the same definition of what they are.

well based on the altcoins that buzzworded the term... those systems would have
full(deemed as lower class to master) nodes that validated and archive small network/region
and then
masternode that validates the combined networks

eg some alts have fullnodes validating/archiving ID data on one network, another that validates american users and their currency on another network. another that validates european users and their currency on another network

and a masternode that accesses monitors and validates all of them

i personally didnt invent the terminology and there are many cases where some buzzwords are completely wrong in regards to the definition
EG
in the UK. a master can be both the main top guy... and also the child of a family
the thing that holds keys that unlock and asset. should be a keyring not a wallet
so i say this. before you start pretending i advocate such things. and before you pretend i termed them

Then based on the "buzzworded" term that you have given everyone, how does that relate to "there will there be master nodes in the Lightning Network"? That looks like misinformation for me.

Plus can anyone else give a definition of master nodes? Thanks.

[squatter]

schnorr has negatives. and trying to do personal attacks to hide the negatives is not helping anyone.
yes schnorr has negatives.

1. it hides how many parties are involved in a multiparty smart contract
2. when signing. even those involved wont know who signed it.

These seem like positive attributes, not negatives. How is having more privacy a bad thing?

3. imagine some users are prompted with a smart contract under the belief thats its a 2-of-2 co-sign address.. but the reality is its actually a 2-of-3 smart contract and the other person has 2 keys and you only have 1.. guess what, chances are the other person will sign off funds to themselves when the 'pot' gets big enough that greed takes over morals

That argument applies to any smart contract. It's not unique to Schnorr, Lightning or anything else.

This can be solved by actually reading smart contracts. For laymen, it can be solved by using well-written wallet software that easily thwarts such fraud attempts, using best practices and community ostracization of malicious actors.