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 Andreas Antonopoulos has some explaining to do April 01, 2017, 02:55:46 AM #1 I have been a big fan of Andreas he's been a great spokesman for Bitcoin.

And he seemed to be most passionate about helping the world's

unbanked...empowering them...getting them sound money, etc.



So, now we have the core developers promoting a new

economic policy for Bitcoin which is essentially based

on Bitcoin being a settlement layer. The most vocal

proponents of Core's roadmap embrace their economics

and say "well, Bitcoin can't be all things to all people.

Bitcoin was never supposed to be coffee money.

You should do things like off-chain, on the LN."



(Which btw was never an economic policy of

Gavin or Satoshi, but that's another story).



So what does this mean for the world's unbanked?



Best case scenario, in the future there will

be zero friction and fees will still be relatively cheap.

But so far, the reality today is that core's

economic policy has caused a substantial

increase in fees and slower confirmations.



In the future, if transactions are forced

off the main chain, it will quite likely

become more expensive to use Bitcoin

due to LN solutions charging fees as well

as increased fees for settlement.



The unbanked have limited cash flow,

and less ability to wait for 'settlement',

and if there are AML/KYC hurdles to

register with a LN provider/hub, then

that is additional friction.



Meanwhile, LN isn't here yet and may not be for

at least a year or more.



The big question is why hasn't

Mr. Antonopoulos said anything

about this?



there's only a few possibilities:



A) the core roadmap will still support cheap micropayments (explain why)

B) the roadmap won't do so, but its ok (explain why)

C) the roadmap won't do so, and its not ok

D) say nothing and remain neutral.



So, Andreas seems to be choosing D and while

that might be acceptable for some people

in Bitcoin, it seems too timid for

someone who previously championed the unbanked.



I say, speak your mind!



Andreas, we've always admired you for having courage and speaking

your mind. I know you are trying to remain neutral and diplomatic,

but you can't remain silent about this point... and to do so

makes you just look like a politician towing the line. proof LN isn't Decentralized official Electron Cash wallet

Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though! vertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here. Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. Theymay be unsafe,untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction

anonymoustroll420



Offline



Activity: 196

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 196Merit: 100 Re: Andreas Antonopoulos has some explaining to do April 01, 2017, 03:50:36 AM

Last edit: April 01, 2017, 04:07:37 AM by anonymoustroll420 #4 Quote from: Killerpotleaf on April 01, 2017, 03:14:43 AM https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/681967343107465216



what happen to you Andreas? did they chip you?

what happen to you Andreas? did they chip you?

Because back then segwit did not include a capacity increase. Now it does. Segwit also allows for extension blocks which can be activated with a softfork, so the limit can be increased in a safer way than doing a hard fork, when needed in the future. when Weak blocks/IBLT are developed, increasing the limit will be much safer, as these will reduce the resources required to run a node.



The core plan for scalability is as follows:



Short term: Segwit, which makes the Bitcoin protocol extensible, allowing for better sidechains and better lightning network plus fixes malleability and allows for other extensions to the protocol in the future. It also includes a small capacity increase, this was added to buy us some time until LN leaves it's current alpha stages.



Medium term: Lightning network, which will allow txes under 0.042BTC to be transacted off-chain instantly with very very low fees. They can still be transacted on chain if wanted however. Currently microtransactions are not possible, LN fixes that. LN is also optional, you do not need to use it.



Long term:



1. IBLT/weak blocks will decrease bandwidth and RAM requirements for nodes, making increasing the limit safer. Extension blocks can be used to increase the limit.



2. Sidechains. A sidechain of MimbleWimble will allow Bitcoin to scale to visa levels. The entire blockchain of MimbleWimble never grows bigger than 1MB. Additionally MimbleWimble has the best privacy features of any cryptocurrency in existence.



Only increasing the blocksize limit is not a long-term solution to scalability. Currently a node requires at least 300GB bandwith/mo. Doubling the blocksize icnrease this by more than double. Over time, running a node will become so difficult that there will only be a few nodes, leading to centralization. SPV wallets have no privacy at all, all your transactions are known to the node. Those few nodes could be forced to censor transactions, spy on users or even be shut down. Additionally the largest blocksize the current code can support is 72MB, not nearly enough for visa scale.

Because back then segwit did not include a capacity increase. Now it does. Segwit also allows for extension blocks which can be activated with a softfork, so the limit can be increased in a safer way than doing a hard fork, when needed in the future. when Weak blocks/IBLT are developed, increasing the limit will be much safer, as these will reduce the resources required to run a node.The core plan for scalability is as follows:Short term: Segwit, which makes the Bitcoin protocol extensible, allowing for better sidechains and better lightning network plus fixes malleability and allows for other extensions to the protocol in the future. It also includes a small capacity increase, this was added to buy us some time until LN leaves it's current alpha stages.Medium term: Lightning network, which will allow txes under 0.042BTC to be transacted off-chain instantly with very very low fees. They can still be transacted on chain if wanted however. Currently microtransactions are not possible, LN fixes that. LN is also optional, you do not need to use it.Long term:1. IBLT/weak blocks will decrease bandwidth and RAM requirements for nodes, making increasing the limit safer. Extension blocks can be used to increase the limit.2. Sidechains. A sidechain of MimbleWimble will allow Bitcoin to scale to visa levels. The entire blockchain of MimbleWimble never grows bigger than 1MB. Additionally MimbleWimble has the best privacy features of any cryptocurrency in existence.Only increasing the blocksize limit is not a long-term solution to scalability. Currently a node requires at least 300GB bandwith/mo. Doubling the blocksize icnrease this by more than double. Over time, running a node will become so difficult that there will only be a few nodes, leading to centralization. SPV wallets have no privacy at all, all your transactions are known to the node. Those few nodes could be forced to censor transactions, spy on users or even be shut down. Additionally the largest blocksize the current code can support is 72MB, not nearly enough for visa scale. Please don't stop us from using ASICBoost which we're not using

franky1



Offline



Activity: 2884

Merit: 1751









LegendaryActivity: 2884Merit: 1751 Re: Andreas Antonopoulos has some explaining to do April 01, 2017, 04:03:49 AM #6 Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 01, 2017, 03:50:36 AM 2. Sidechains. A sidechain of MimbleWimble will allow Bitocin to scale to visa levels. The entire blockchain of MimbleWimble never grows bigger than 1MB. Additionally MimbleWimble has the best privacy features of any cryptocurrency in existence.



sidechains= altcoin



sidechains allows "cryptocurrenty"/blockchain tech to expand to visa.. not "bitcoin".



its much like starting a bank. one bank branch says it cant cope with all its customers. so instead of expanding the bank branch with more customer counter desks they open a new bank branch with a different name down the road.

where people can move funds back and forth between branches.



but later hope everyone never returns to the original bank branch because the new branch is more efficient.



WAKE UP to the reality of the meaning of sidechains/offchain sidechains= altcoinsidechains allows "cryptocurrenty"/blockchain tech to expand to visa.. not "bitcoin".its much like starting a bank. one bank branch says it cant cope with all its customers. so instead of expanding the bank branch with more customer counter desks they open a new bank branch with a different name down the road.where people can move funds back and forth between branches.but later hope everyone never returns to the original bank branch because the new branch is more efficient.WAKE UP to the reality of the meaning of sidechains/offchain 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

franky1



Offline



Activity: 2884

Merit: 1751









LegendaryActivity: 2884Merit: 1751 Re: Andreas Antonopoulos has some explaining to do April 04, 2017, 01:19:35 AM

Last edit: April 04, 2017, 01:31:23 AM by franky1 #8 Quote from: andrew24p on April 04, 2017, 12:53:13 AM Well you might as well fork because core is never going to do it.



cores the only one with the Fork threats



Quote from: gmaxwell on October 18, 2016, 08:21:30 AM



I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.



The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

PoW algo threats



Bip148 mandatory activation fork threat



all the deadlines. all the REKT campaigns..



meanwhile all the other non-core implementations just plod along without making threats and leave it for users to choose openly as they please.



oh and i do laugh.

when a core dev pretends to be independent. yet then screams they refuse and are afraid to do the reviewing of other implementations..

then goes out and screams other implementations are not independently reviewed.



thats like not paying child support then screaming out that its a travesty that children are not supported by deadbeat dads cores the only one with the Fork threatsPoW algo threatsBip148 mandatory activation fork threatall the deadlines. all the REKT campaigns..meanwhile all the other non-core implementations just plod along without making threats and leave it for users to choose openly as they please.oh and i do laugh.when a core dev pretends to be independent. yet then screams they refuse and are afraid to do the reviewing of other implementations..then goes out and screams other implementations are not independently reviewed.thats like not paying child support then screaming out that its a travesty that children are not supported by deadbeat dads 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

zimmah



Offline



Activity: 1106

Merit: 1005









LegendaryActivity: 1106Merit: 1005 Re: Andreas Antonopoulos has some explaining to do April 04, 2017, 01:44:03 AM #9 Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 01, 2017, 02:55:46 AM

So, now we have the core developers promoting a new

economic policy for Bitcoin which is essentially based

on Bitcoin being a settlement layer. The most vocal

proponents of Core's roadmap embrace their economics

and say "well, Bitcoin can't be all things to all people.

Bitcoin was never supposed to be coffee money.

You should do things like off-chain, on the LN."



(Which btw was never an economic policy of

Gavin or Satoshi, but that's another story).









Bingo!



Core is trying to drastically change bitcoin into something else, and are trying to take control over the project.



And yet many people accuse BU for trying to take control, even though BU just wants to keep bitcoin the way it always was.



I also think Andeas should speak up against Core but he seems to lack the balls to do so.

Bingo!Core is trying to drastically change bitcoin into something else, and are trying to take control over the project.And yet many people accuse BU for trying to take control, even though BU just wants to keep bitcoin the way it always was.I also think Andeas should speak up against Core but he seems to lack the balls to do so.