Adrian-x



Offline



Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1372Merit: 1000 Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 30, 2017, 10:30:35 PM #443 transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.





here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction:



Quote from: Greg Maxwell There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.

Quote from: Pieter Wuille we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later

Quote from: Mark Friedenbach Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome.



Quote from: Luke-jr Reasonable block sizes currently range from ~550k to 1 MB"

Quote from: Jorge Timon  higher fees may be just what is needed 



Quote from: Wladimir J. van der Laan A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. Just a reminder. SegWit is a, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction: Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw

traincarswreck



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 30, 2017, 10:32:00 PM #444 Quote from: Adrian-x on March 30, 2017, 10:30:35 PM transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.





here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction:



Quote from: Greg Maxwell There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.

Quote from: Pieter Wuille we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later

Quote from: Mark Friedenbach Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome.



Quote from: Luke-jr Reasonable block sizes currently range from ~550k to 1 MB"

Quote from: Jorge Timon  higher fees may be just what is needed 



Quote from: Wladimir J. van der Laan A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.

Just a reminder. SegWit is a, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction: Its weird how all of the intelligent active devs and educated persons have the same opinion that BU is bad and a limit on the block size is important.

jonald_fyookball



Offline



Activity: 1302

Merit: 1002





Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political







LegendaryActivity: 1302Merit: 1002Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 31, 2017, 12:20:47 AM #446 Quote from: Adrian-x on March 30, 2017, 10:30:35 PM Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.



I would like to understand more about this. I know that there is a transaction piece and a witness piece, but why can't they simply both be increased

in a linear fashion in the future?



Quote

here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction:



Quote from: Greg Maxwell There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.

Quote from: Pieter Wuille we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later

Quote from: Mark Friedenbach Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome.



Quote from: Luke-jr Reasonable block sizes currently range from ~550k to 1 MB"

Quote from: Jorge Timon  higher fees may be just what is needed 



Quote from: Wladimir J. van der Laan A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.

here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction:

ahh the old bandwagon... a tried and true propaganda technique. works every time. i mean, they can't all be wrong can they?



I would like to understand more about this. I know that there is a transaction piece and a witness piece, but why can't they simply both be increasedin a linear fashion in the future?ahh the old bandwagon... a tried and true propaganda technique. works every time. i mean, they can't all be wrong can they? proof LN isn't Decentralized official Electron Cash wallet

Adrian-x



Offline



Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1372Merit: 1000 Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 31, 2017, 01:31:25 AM #448 Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 30, 2017, 11:18:37 PM Quote from: Adrian-x on March 30, 2017, 10:30:35 PM Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.



No, that's wrong.



By fixing tx malleability, segwit enables payment channels like Lightning Network, which may support unlimited numbers of instantly confirmed on-chain transactions.

No, that's wrong.By fixing tx malleability, segwit enables payment channels like Lightning Network, which may support unlimited numbers of instantly confirmed on-chain transactions.

iCEBREAKER Fixing malleability is like fixing your cat.



It's the owner that gets to define the problem and it's the cat that gets fixed. (The cat works just fine with it's manhood intact)



Malleable transaction haven't stopped Bitcoin from working. In fact malleable transactions prevent types of applications that move fee paying transactions off the Bitcoin network and onto other networks like the Lightning Network - resulting in less fees to pay for bitcoin security



Let me explain - Malleability is a behavior that encourages network participants using the network in other ways to have functions other than money confirm on the blockchain. Its functions should be defined and agreed before it's classified as something needing a fix, it's not a bug it's not harmed bitcoin, if anything it's been a scapegoat used to arguer fraud and that bitcoin is not broken and works for everyone, fix this and we fix fraud (NOT).



Bitcoin Transaction Malleability puts individual users who want to be their own bank on the same playing field as multinational corporations who want to use bitcoin to build a private banking layer on top of bitcoin, why remove it?





Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 31, 2017, 12:20:47 AM Quote from: Adrian-x on March 30, 2017, 10:30:35 PM Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight.



I would like to understand more about this. I know that there is a transaction piece and a witness piece, but why can't they simply both be increased

in a linear fashion in the future?



I would like to understand more about this. I know that there is a transaction piece and a witness piece, but why can't they simply both be increasedin a linear fashion in the future?

If we activate segwit we get a marginal increase in transaction limit, (the number of transactions obfuscated so you can't do the math but maybe it's a 70% increase) and we move from a 1MB block limit to a 4MB block weight. where a simple 4MB limit would give us a 300% increase in transaction volume.



In the future if we what to increase the transaction limit once segwit is active lets say a 4MB block limit, we would get a 16MB block weight.



So if we compare apples with apples the transaction limit with transaction limits, we get a much higher transaction limit if we move to a 4MB block size than we do if we move to a 4MB block weight. the difference is more profound when you think that moving to an 8MB block limit is equivalent to a 8MB block weight.



with segwit it gets harder and harder to increase the transaction limit iCEBREAKER Fixing malleability is like fixing your cat.It's the owner that gets to define the problem and it's the cat that gets fixed. (The cat works just fine with it's manhood intact)Malleable transaction haven't stopped Bitcoin from working. In fact malleable transactions prevent types of applications that move fee paying transactions off the Bitcoin network and onto other networks like the Lightning Network - resulting in less fees to pay for bitcoin securityLet me explain - Malleability is a behavior that encourages network participants using the network in other ways to have functions other than money confirm on the blockchain. Its functions should be defined and agreed before it's classified as something needing a fix, it's not a bug it's not harmed bitcoin, if anything it's been a scapegoat used to arguer fraud and that bitcoin is not broken and works for everyone, fix this and we fix fraud (NOT).Bitcoin Transaction Malleability puts individual users who want to be their own bank on the same playing field as multinational corporations who want to use bitcoin to build a private banking layer on top of bitcoin, why remove it?If we activate segwit we get a marginal increase in transaction limit, (the number of transactions obfuscated so you can't do the math but maybe it's a 70% increase) and we move from a 1MB block limit to a 4MB block weight. where a simple 4MB limit would give us a 300% increase in transaction volume.In the future if we what to increase the transaction limit once segwit is active lets say a 4MB block limit, we would get a 16MB block weight.So if we comparethe transaction limit with transaction limits, we get a much higher transaction limit if we move to a 4MB block size than we do if we move to a 4MB block weight. the difference is more profound when you think that moving to an 8MB block limit is equivalent to a 8MB block weight.with segwit it gets harder and harder to increase the transaction limit Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw

Adrian-x



Offline



Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1372Merit: 1000 Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 31, 2017, 01:44:12 AM #450 Quote from: Killerpotleaf on March 31, 2017, 01:33:56 AM Quote from: RaXmOuSe on March 31, 2017, 12:56:01 AM core-fans seems to have no problems with high fees, why?



they trust core

they trust core

trust no one, we are talking about controlling money. Bitcoin has incentives, if anything trust the incentives, (i quoited the economic policy of the most influential Core Developers) miners do not have an incentive to limit transaction volume, nether do the users, core developers who are building layer 2 networks - actually do have a reason to limit bitcoin growth).



And beware the boogeyman centralization buzzwords with no science - Until someone can prove how moving from 300,000 transactions a day to 5,000,000 transactions a day over the coming years results in me having to upgrade my entry level internet and my PC at home they are just bluffing. When they say removing the transaction limit results in a data center controlled by government or some other centralized entity, they need to show the math and projected costs. trust no one, we are talking about controlling money. Bitcoin has incentives, if anything trust the incentives, (i quoited the economic policy of the most influential Core Developers) miners do not have an incentive to limit transaction volume, nether do the users, core developers who are building layer 2 networks - actually do have a reason to limit bitcoin growth).And beware the boogeyman centralization buzzwords with no science - Until someone can prove how moving from 300,000 transactions a day to 5,000,000 transactions a day over the coming years results in me having to upgrade my entry level internet and my PC at home they are just bluffing. When they say removing the transaction limit results in a data center controlled by government or some other centralized entity, they need to show the math and projected costs. Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw

jbreher



Offline



Activity: 2870

Merit: 1504





lose: unfind ... loose: untight







LegendaryActivity: 2870Merit: 1504lose: unfind ... loose: untight Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 31, 2017, 01:50:00 AM #454 Quote from: traincarswreck on March 30, 2017, 06:01:54 AM



Quote from: BU Articles of Federation Proposals are made, debated, and then resolved (voted on) and the Proposer and BU officers have the power to force this process to occur in a timely fashion.

Why are you trying to give the power of bitcoin away to an obvious and admitted dictatorship? Or did you not read the articles you were signing up to?

Seems better than the dictatorship you have been advocating for:Why are you trying to give the power of bitcoin away to an obvious and admitted dictatorship? Or did you not read the articles you were signing up to?

Haha. Your very quote belies how badly you are capable of misinterpreting clear language. Haha. Your very quote belies how badly you are capable of misinterpreting clear language. Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.



I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

jbreher



Offline



Activity: 2870

Merit: 1504





lose: unfind ... loose: untight







LegendaryActivity: 2870Merit: 1504lose: unfind ... loose: untight Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 31, 2017, 01:53:16 AM #455 Quote from: traincarswreck on March 30, 2017, 06:23:36 AM



Quote There is no democratic way to kick something like this off so I am just going to be autocratic about it. Im defining myself judge, jury and executioner (with the valuable input of those who have been interacting with me of course!) with the power to appoint the initial members. These initial members will then proceed to invite new members. A direct quote from the self appointed president.

BU was built on this you liar:A direct quote from the self appointed president.

Firstly, the president was voted - not self-appointed. Secondly, his powers are limited and defined. And lastly, that is simply the forum post that kicked off the organization process - it is not an element of the bylaws. Firstly, the president was voted - not self-appointed. Secondly, his powers are limited and defined. And lastly, that is simply the forum post that kicked off the organization process - it is not an element of the bylaws. Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.



I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

traincarswreck



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 31, 2017, 02:27:27 AM #456 Quote from: jbreher on March 31, 2017, 01:53:16 AM



Quote There is no democratic way to kick something like this off so I am just going to be autocratic about it. Im defining myself judge, jury and executioner (with the valuable input of those who have been interacting with me of course!) with the power to appoint the initial members. These initial members will then proceed to invite new members.







Firstly, the president was voted - not self-appointed. Secondly, his powers are limited and defined. And lastly, that is simply the forum post that kicked off the organization process - it is not an element of the bylaws.

Firstly, the president was voted - not self-appointed. Secondly, his powers are limited and defined. And lastly, that is simply the forum post that kicked off the organization process - it is not an element of the bylaws.



When the start of the hierarchy is started from self appointment the BU articles of federation serve only to usurp core and to give the president dictatorship over bitcoin. For what I can tell there is no rule that the same person can't rule forever...?



All of the articles secure this, and I have shown it. are you a member?When the start of the hierarchy is started from self appointment the BU articles of federation serve only to usurp core and to give the president dictatorship over bitcoin. For what I can tell there is no rule that the same person can't rule forever...?All of the articles secure this, and I have shown it.

Adrian-x



Offline



Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1372Merit: 1000 Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell March 31, 2017, 02:36:44 AM #458 BU is not bitcoin it's an open source software implementation of the bitcoin client. - Unlike linus torvald's Linux or mike hear's XT it does not have a benevolent dictator, and unlike Core's crony consensus, BU has a mechanism by which controversial changes are presented evaluated and voted on.



Core may have a geographically decentralized developer base, but make no mistake it's only a few influential developers who get to decide what projects take priority, and no rational process to resolve conflicts, case in point BIP101 - which ironically lead to the discussion on how to better resolve conflicts that resulted in BU's Articles of Federation.



Ultimately users decide what bitcoin software they run. BU members want more diversity less centralized control, BU has one governing system for controversial changes to one implementation, Core has none. I hope to see more. Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw