Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT!

[Wind_FURY]

anyways.. segwit 2 years on and no improvement to transaction counts or fee's.

Fees are definitely improved. They are not perfect but they are currently less than they were 2 years ago, even though the price has increased significantly and blocks are near full, at about the same size they were in January 2018. That's a drastic improvement.

Just compare the 2 charts and see for yourself:

https://bitcoinfees.info/
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2years

Look at the satoshis per byte fee chart. Definitely reduced.

Haha. It's only a debate they use to trick newbies into believing their narrative, and to prevent the said newbies from studying, and going deeper.

[DooMAD]

segwit was not consensus. it was aparthied to fake consensus

wrong---all valid soft forks (backed by sufficient hash power) are part of the consensus because they are compatible with existing consensus rules. no one needs your permission to add compatible rules, franky.

you already opted into bitcoin's consensus rules by virtue of running a bitcoin node. segwit (because it was backed by sufficient hash power) was 100% compatible with the existing consensus rules, meaning you already consented.

this is the same reason why 51% attacks and miner transaction censorship are also 100% compatible with bitcoin. that is bitcoin's security model: miners don't need "consent" to do what nodes have already consented to. nodes enforce the consensus rules, nothing more.

seems your re-writing history... funny that.
simple english
BEFORE the consensus activation. nodes were BANNING other nodes and REJECTING blocks.
again.. incase you dont get it

Nodes were DISCONNECTING other nodes, not banning them.  You are the master of trying (and failing) to rewrite history.  Troll harder.

[franky1]

UASF less impactful? It actually opened everyone's eyes that it's more impactful.

seems you have not read the code, nor stats, nor even looked beyond the preaches of your buddies.
1. UASF is just a buzzword. you seem to take the acronyms meaning on face value to think it actually meant USERS(whole community) HAD TO participate to assist.
what you do not realise is that it only required the core devs with control of the networks dns seed nodes, the 'fibre' nodes to ban(disconnect) nodes to throw them off the network. this included pools nodes

2. if you talk to your buddies about the backward compatibility code, they will tell you core fangirl USER(community) nodes didnt need to upgrade to be on the network.. it just needed the important infrustructure nodes

3. as august 1st shown by pushing off the opposition, and getting MERCHANT nodes and POOL nodes to be armtwisted or bribed by investers to accept segwit, that it caused segwit to activate as it appeared there was no opposition because opposition and user(community) nodes did not get counted.

4. even speak to doomad your girlfriend, doomad has been endlessly stating that devs dont need users permission.

actually do some proper deep research and ask questions rather than just listen to your buddies stories and take it on face value.
UASF did not mean the community had a vote and assisted in the soft fork.. it was just the prime important nodes of mainly the pools and merchants

if you dont want to do indepth research, then atleast take a step back from discussing things you dont know, but pretend to know

5. the important part is. that core now can use a trojan horse network to change the network. and any future forks will mainly be just them giving a pitty illusion of community participation in devs decisions. as doomad says devs can do what they like and no one can stop them

....
doomad keeps on saying how user nodes validate all blocks and important to the network. yet the validation which usernodes do is just for self certification of what the node stores themselves.. usernodes no longer are important to upgrade decisions.

[Wind_FURY]

UASF less impactful? It actually opened everyone's eyes that it's more impactful.

seems you have not read the code, nor stats, nor even looked beyond the preaches of your buddies.

No, but you "seem" to reject history, and what really happened, and try to be on a misinformation rampage again. It's YOU who's trying to rewrite history, or should I say gaslighting again.

doomad keeps on saying how user nodes validate all blocks and important to the network. yet the validation which usernodes do is just for self certification of what the node stores themselves.. usernodes no longer are important to upgrade decisions.

Not according to history. Research UASF.

[squatter]

That's actually how network consensus works. Consensus means unanimity. It's impossible to get every single Bitcoin user to affirmatively agree to a new consensus -- i.e. a new set a consensus rules; a hard fork. So if users (like those who created BCH) want to create an incompatible fork, they are therefore leaving the consensus and establishing a new network, completely incompatible (and incommunicable) with the old.

Actually , Consensus means that the majority % of the community joins in , not splinter off.

There's a reason why we use the term consensus -- not majority rule or democracy or any other such nonsense. This is not a vote. You either join the existing consensus or leave it.

This is free open-source software. Nobody can stop anyone else from splintering off. That's their free choice.

[franky1]

windfury. do proper research
read the code... not your buddies interpretation.

oh and while your at it, if you really want to know about segwit. ask Sipa.. and while asking him, askwhy he does not trust his own donations to be secured by segwit

he seems to prefer legacy..
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/  bottom right of page
" Tips and donations: 1Nro***
bitcoin-stats on GitHub "

its been 2 years and he still aint ready to put his own income on hi own invention

oh, then go speak to samson mow. ask about his previous job and how one moment they were supporting segwit, but when activated the pool he was employed by didnt even trust segwit to put its blockreward onto segwit. go ahead ask about it

[DooMAD]

oh and while your at it, if you really want to know about segwit. ask Sipa.. and while asking him, askwhy he does not trust his own donations to be secured by segwit

he seems to prefer legacy..
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/  bottom right of page
" Tips and donations: 1Nro***
bitcoin-stats on GitHub "

its been 2 years and he still aint ready to put his own income on hi own invention

So, not content with wanting to tell Sipa what they can and can't code, you also want to bitch about where they do or don't keep their funds?  Nazi much?  Any other orders, mein fuhrer?

[franky1]

So, not content with wanting to tell Sipa what they can and can't code, you also want to bitch about where they do or don't keep their funds?  Nazi much?  Any other orders, mein fuhrer?

[✓] Doomad still highlighting tat devs should do as thy please to the network, unprovoked
[✓] Doomad cant explain a thing but just turns it into an insult attempt
[✓] Doomad still not open minded to think outside the core fangirl box

any orders? yep.
1. if you dont likewhat i have to say, hit the ignore button
2. do some research
3. actually try point 2 for once.

[dimastegar]

It has been 2 years since SegWit was activated. And it's almost 2 years since SegWit2x failed to replace SegWit. Both are a big history in the world of Bitcoin. Where every SegWit has a good destination for Bitcoin. And it also benefits users and Bitcoin miners.

I can only hope that in the future there is a better solution for Bitcoin users to speed transactions, We know that a block of 1MB can still accommodate all Bitcoin transactions every day. At least we need a slightly larger block to accommodate the needs of Bitcoin transactions.

[Wind_FURY]

windfury. do proper research
read the code... not your buddies interpretation.

Do my research? What are you talking about? You told everyone that Lightning transactions are made of IOUs. I did my research, it's NOT made of IOUs.

What you should do is stop the lies and misinformation, and stop acting like you know more than everyone, "because you can read the code". But you're trolling. OK.

[franky1]

windfury. do proper research
read the code... not your buddies interpretation.

Do my research? What are you talking about? You told everyone that Lightning transactions are made of IOUs. I did my research, it's NOT made of IOUs.

What you should do is stop the lies and misinformation, and stop acting like you know more than everyone, "because you can read the code". But you're trolling. OK.

they are iou's.. its the same as bank notes that were pegged to gold. are you that naive about the fiat system too.
the settlement (hint is in the name settlement) is where funds that are owed are shared with those in the multisig, in amounts those in the multisig agree each owe and are owed.

LN is not moving real bitcoin, like century old bank nots were not moving real gold.
understand the vaulting mechanism of segwit and you will understand bitcoin stays locked up. and that a pegged token is then used on another network to represent what share of the vaulted coin is owed and who to.

seems your so unresearched that you have not even looked into other sidenetworks pegged to bitcoin. devs even admit that things like LN and Liquid are not moving bitcoin or settling funds, but just making gestures as to who owes what. not who actually holds and fully owns securely what.

if you have not understood the fiat 'debt system' to realise why fiat is so flawed. even though fiat has ben around all your life to have had time to understand it and research it.. then i am not surprised that you cant grasp aspects of things that are less than a decade old

[Wind_FURY]

franky1, stop.

I want to respect you, and the people like you from the "other side" of the debate.

You can support/use/HODL a cryptocurrency that has lesser security model in exchange for making it more suitable as a medium of exchange. But you don't have to lie, or misinform, or attack other people who don't share your opinion/support.

[franky1]

franky1, stop.

I want to respect you, and the people like you from the "other side" of the debate.

You can support/use/HODL a cryptocurrency that has lesser security model in exchange for making it more suitable as a medium of exchange. But you don't have to lie, or misinform, or attack other people who don't share your opinion/support.

if you want token A on network A to be a good medium of exchange. then pegging off and using token b on network b is not, again NOT IN ANY WAY making token A a better medium of exchange. because token A is not even used.
(and before you start saying an LN payment is a btc tx.. no.. Msats are not a token that exists in btc)

if you want to keep going down the route of saying btc can exist on other networks. then you have shoot self in the foot in regards to the bch debate about brand identity

plus dont continue on about how LN is a btc layer that will make btc great. because LN is muticurrency independant network. not a feature solely offered to btc to make btc greater than others

its becoming too apparent that some pople believe th flufffy promotional material and dont even dare to look beyond it and actually read code speak to devs or just use it abuseifly to see if it breaks (bug fix tactic)

[Wind_FURY]

Sorry franky1, we have debated about that many times. I cannot accept something wrong as something right. Read this if want to criticize Lightning, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170358.msg52165227#msg52165227

That's what I dislike in blockchain. Developers would say something, get criticized, and then declare that something else was their original intention.

[franky1]

Sorry franky1, we have debated about that many times. I cannot accept something wrong as something right. Read this if want to criticize Lightning, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170358.msg52165227#msg52165227

That's what I dislike in blockchain. Developers would say something, get criticized, and then declare that something else was their original intention.

so khaos and you were talking about IOU. and you rebuttled with a quote about capacity.

thats like having a conversation about describing beef. and then you start talking about orange juice

as fr the bit where u were quoting carltons flop whn describing the iou's
1. LN is iou system and yes pople can be 'stiffed' by their counterpart. even LN devs lost funds
2. LN is a different network, msats are not btc. LN is a pgged network to let users write iou's to each other and then settle the debt at a later date
3. alex's flip flop tweet about decreasing capacity actually increases capacity. is actually false. the btc network and its token do not increase capacity due to LN. it diverts users off the network so that other users can fit into the same capacity.

EG
btc is capable of ~600k tx a day
a bus is cable of60 passengers

take users off the btc network to use LN
take people off the bus to use a train

does not increase btc capacity
does not increase the bus capacity

btc remains at ~600k capacity
bus remains at 60 seat capacity

again the bus still has 60 seats and btc still can only do ~600k tx a day

[bob123]

EG
btc is capable of ~600k tx a day
a bus is cable of60 passengers

take users off the btc network to use LN
take people off the bus to use a train

does not increase btc capacity
does not increase the bus capacity

btc remains at ~600k capacity
bus remains at 60 seat capacity

again the bus still has 60 seats and btc still can only do ~600k tx a day

You still don't understand it.. sigh..
We already had that discussion. And i explained it to you several times.

What you describe as 'btc' in your example is just an on-chain transaction, not the whole network.

The BTC network would be to get people from X to Y.
And in this case it doesn't matter whether they take the bus (on-chain) or the train (off-chain).


That's how i would explain it to a kid (i.e. to you).
In reality nothing works like that and your example is pure garbage. You can not compare network transactions to taking a bus/train.

I mean.. you keep using something like 'increasing blocksize means twice as much seats'. Well.. it works for such extremely simple things.
But what about segwit ? How would you describe segwit with busses ? Or schnorr signatures ?
Things aren't as simple as you believe them to be.

You are alone with your opinion, accept that and move on. No one cares what you think or have to say.

[franky1]

bob123.. do not get involved in LN discussions..
seriously you have no clue.
i have read the code spoke to devs, read the documentation and actually used LN. .. unlike many core fangirls that lack such research

by you even trying to think LN is bitcoin is soo flawed that when you actually do eventualy go into details about it, you will end up facepalming yourself when re-reading your old posts.

LN is a separate network.
LN pegs different coins. yep right now its litecoin, vertcoin, btc. but the list continues.
if you cannot grasp the fact that btc remains on the btc network and a peg is used.. then you need to research msats in LN and then when you find it. try finding msats in btc.. guess what... you wont find it. because the two tokens/mediums of exchange are not the same thing. btc network does not understand msats

atleast try to read code/use ln.

as for segwit, just check out the code for segwit. it says LOCKTIME.. not swaptime, not anything else to even hint that btc moves networks. it just locks btc o the btc network for a period of time. and then on the separate network that lock is used as evidence to then allow LN to create new medium of exchange called msats in the LN channels

whats next? core fangirls gonna say if btc is LN and ltc is LN the ltc must be btc.... think about it (hint: no its not)

as for bus analogy for legacy/segwit. simple

after segwit activation, buses upgraded to quadruple decker buses. now then. when a segwit family gets on, the parents(witness to childs existence) sit upstairs but the child(txdata) sits downstairs. the legacy family stay together and can only sit downstairs. the bus driver then only counts the passengers on the downstairs level and only charges them for a bus ticket.

as for schnorr. well the parents get together and nominate only one parent to get onboard the bus with the child.

those that think LN is btc.. must by default think last century bank notes are actual gold... (facepalm)
seems more people need to do independent research and drop their attachment to getting spoonfed misinterpretations from their buddies

by the way. if you do not have sole control of your assets, they are not your assets. its an old bitcoin tale but still worth people remembering when using LN. because many people including devs of LN have lost funds using it.

i personally would never want to associate a weak security service like LN with btc as it tarnishes btc.. id rather just call it a side service available to multiple networks including btc

bitcoins greatness lays in the fact that its secure. so trying to link an insecure separate network thats not even a blockchain under the same brand is actually worse then associating bitcoin with bch

[DooMAD]

spoke to devs

Which ones?  The BU devs?   

I'm guessing you didn't speak to the ones who left you negative feedback for:

Extreme and persistent dishonesty

or

Spreading FUD and trolling

Either way, if I hear directly from a developer that something is wrong, I'll take it under advisement.  If you tell me your contorted interpretation of what a dev supposedly told you, which likely bears no resemblance to what they actually said, I'll ignore it, because you have zero credibility.  Find a new audience, this one is booing you off the stage.

[franky1]

doomad, keep kissing core devs asses. as it seems you wont stop. but when you speak with them actually ask about negative impacts of things. dont just ask for fluffy unicorn versions

gmax had a gripe with me about segwits issues in 2015, to do with the anyonecanspend. yet year later he must have realised it himself as his team he managed then done a work around.
gmax had other gripes too, but instead of factually rebutting he went down your path of just insults.
gmax has made many fails over the years, he is very opinionated and doesnt like it when negatives are mentioned. if only you knew the amount of vulnerabilities his team added to bitcoin over the years. even you would start to losen ur lips from him

but hey, i know you will just continue your insult hurling by just saying 'wrong because wrong' (lack of evidence) so i accept your standard replies as such, i just wish ud use the time better to do some actual research

anyone that actually cares about bitcoin, should not be a dev kiss ass. but instead someone that calls out issues and holds dvs to conform to a certain standard. just having a 'let the devs do as they please they dont need anyones permission' is like handing a country over to tyrants

do not reply if your going to be a core fangirl in your statements. try to use the part of the brain that cares about the network(not humans)

[squatter]

if you want token A on network A to be a good medium of exchange. then pegging off and using token b on network b is not, again NOT IN ANY WAY making token A a better medium of exchange. because token A is not even used.

Bitcoin is not merely a medium of exchange, and its network can secure more than just Bitcoin transactions. Why is that a bad thing?

Users can use either token as a medium of exchange, depending on which security and UX trade offs they prefer. Why is that a bad thing?