All posts made by danielW in Bitcointalk.org's Wall Observer thread
1.
Post 3859534 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.33h):
well, I managed to lose 1000$ in this madness, guess that's good, lol
Thats why you should just play this song when price is going nuts.
http://youtu.be/NG1qooBzE2wThe song is even funnier in times like this. Its the bitcoin Anthem.
2.
Post 3861746 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.33h):
Damn it, now I'm starting to get pissed... All my coins are in cold storage, can't sell if I wanted
Your probably better of that way.
3.
Post 3915036 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.35h):
Well.. I speculate that we will hand around the 800-1200 range (maybe slowly inching up) for about 1-3 months.
Then early 2014 its full steam ahead to 2k - 5k.
4.
Post 3945379 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.37h):
Was there ever any more crazy commodity or whatever that is traded, lol?
You just can't have idea where the fucker is going
The moon
5.
Post 3992192 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_11.39h):
Wow, it's always funny to see mood changes in this Thread..
@950 * to the moooon*
@900 * Beartrap!*
@850 * we're doomed*
@900 * Bulltrap!*
--> repeat from top
x2 people need to step back and chill.
6.
Post 5866734 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_12.28h):
So where are we supposed to be currently on the long term log chart?
Anybody have chart?
edit: lol, ok posted just before.
7.
Post 8345353 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.04h):
LOL@BITFINEX
how do i see it?
8.
Post 8345380 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.04h):
LOL@BITFINEX
how do i see it?
ok I see it. Is that margin calls?
9.
Post 9515851 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.30h):
And shorted at 381!!!
lol $386 a few minutes later.
10.
Post 9854786 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_13.39h):
What's everybody crying about?
Cheap coins man, cheap coins. You were begging for this for months.
Everytime the price dropped 10 dollars the champagne bottles opened and you were "gobbling up" all these cheap coins. So what's the problem exactly?
Out of fiat, want expensive coins now.
11.
Post 12169353 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
The possible complication is if the community gets stuck in a half-way state, with almost equal mining power on each side. Then there may be two blockchains, lots of orphaned blocks and branches, etc..
You don't want to know about that possibility; just pray that it does not happen, and, if it does, just stop issuing transaction until the impasse gets resolved as above. Even after the critical block, all the unspent coins that were created before that block will remain there, no matter what happens.
It was my understanding the XT fork will only take place if 75% of hashpower supports it. I suppose miners could change their minds after the fact, but otherwise a "half-way state" will not result in a fork.
Hash power could 'fake support it' i.e. pretend to be XT nodes but not actually fork. This could be a method to ensure a stillborn fork without enough hashpower.
12.
Post 12169417 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
Hash power could 'fake support it' i.e. pretend to be XT nodes but not actually fork. This could be a method to ensure a stillborn fork without enough hashpower.
Why did the image pass through my mind of a miner vigorously banging his head with a spoon?
no idea why.
13.
Post 12181059 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.23h):
they not scared of the fork just the misinformation from the Cripplecoiners, mainly the censoring and blocking of the views and discussion from those interested in increasing the block size from being discussed on Reddit and here on bitcointalk.org.
The biggest cripplecoiners, i.e. the core devs, have done more work then anybody on allowing bitcoin to scale.
14.
Post 12233850 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.24h):
This is what happens, when people try to force a contentious hard fork.
Btw miners will mine both because they will both have economic value and money is to be made.
Two separate chains is a very realistic possibility and gets more likely as time goes by. Both sides are becoming more entrenched in their positions and refuse to back down. The arguments are getting more heated and angry.
15.
Post 12414480 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.26h):
It's a little bit like calling Alchemists scientists. In any case, I would like to hear which 16th century mind argued for inflation, especially as currency was
specie.
Economists now are still in the Alchemist stage. Its mostly just pseudo-science.
16.
Post 13789588 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Gavin's big dial with the shit-eating grin on front of r/bitcoin again ... dump incoming.
edit: notice how he releases these controversial posts at critical timings for technical price breakouts ... or coincidence?
What has he controversially posted? I don't read r/bitcoin and I can't face wading through page after page to find his post. Is it another post about the block size combined with another alternate Bitcoin wallet? The last thing I heard about Gavin was he climbed down to suggesting going for 2MB blocks.
Dumpus_Maximus just posted about arbitrary numbers and binaries for "crassic"
usual thing, brigade voted to the top in no time by the usual paid shills, trolls, zealots and agent provocateurs
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/... dump incoming as per expected, cheap coinz for his bankster buddies.
Some people would rather the 75% be 95% or 99%. I think that is too high because it gives “veto power” to a single big solo miner or mining pool. Holding veto power is dangerous– somebody who disagrees with the change or just wants to disrupt Bitcoin might use extortion, bribery, or blackmail against a miner to try to prevent the change.
Other people think 75% is too high; after all, if 51% of hash power got together they could just choose to ignore blocks that vote 'the wrong way’. If they are mining pools they might lose most of their miners, but they could.What a thoughtless heathen!
Lol he can not gain consensus so he just lowered the trigger (compared to 95% which is usually used for soft forks!) to try and push through his chaotic contentious hard fork (really attempted coup).
He is again using political language, hiding his real aim of forcing a hard fork under the banner of fighting extortion veto etc. Nobody is extorting anybody many people simply disagree. Bitcoin is meant to not change without consensus.
17.
Post 13789619 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Meant to not change without how much consensus?
Edit: Some of it? All of it?
More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.
18.
Post 13789630 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Gavin's big dial with the shit-eating grin on front of r/bitcoin again ... dump incoming.
edit: notice how he releases these controversial posts at critical timings for technical price breakouts ... or coincidence?
What has he controversially posted? I don't read r/bitcoin and I can't face wading through page after page to find his post. Is it another post about the block size combined with another alternate Bitcoin wallet? The last thing I heard about Gavin was he climbed down to suggesting going for 2MB blocks.
Dumpus_Maximus just posted about arbitrary numbers and binaries for "crassic"
usual thing, brigade voted to the top in no time by the usual paid shills, trolls, zealots and agent provocateurs
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/... dump incoming as per expected, cheap coinz for his bankster buddies.
Some people would rather the 75% be 95% or 99%. I think that is too high because it gives “veto power” to a single big solo miner or mining pool. Holding veto power is dangerous– somebody who disagrees with the change or just wants to disrupt Bitcoin might use extortion, bribery, or blackmail against a miner to try to prevent the change.
Other people think 75% is too high; after all, if 51% of hash power got together they could just choose to ignore blocks that vote 'the wrong way’. If they are mining pools they might lose most of their miners, but they could.What a thoughtless heathen!
Lol he can not gain consensus so he just lowered the trigger (compared to 95% which is usually used for soft forks!) to try and push through his chaotic contentious hard fork.
He is again using political language, hiding his real aim of forcing a hard fork under the banner of fighting extortion veto etc. Nobody is extorting anybody many people simply disagree. Bitcoin is meant to not change without consensus.
define consensus.
if consensus means >95% of the community/miners then Bitcoin will never move ahead! its very easy to convince a minority of 5% to block a certain unwanted evolution. the result is gridlock.
Just few months ago core got more then 95% consensus for their soft fork. So you are factually wrong to say Bitcoin never moves ahead if 95% is required.
It is moving and improving rapidly all the time.
19.
Post 13789805 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Just few months ago core got more then 95% consensus for their soft fork. So you are factually wrong to say Bitcoin never moves ahead if 95% is required.
It is moving and improving rapidly all the time.
it doesnt matter if you had an uncontroversial soft fork that was accepted by 95%. when it comes to crucial and controversial decisions and not just minor changes you will see that 95% means factual gridlock as 5% can be easily mobilized. bitcoin will face even harder decisions than this blocksize issue at the moment, with maybe even harder controversies.
and in THAT situations of controversial but neccessary decisions 95% are deadly, as you may eventually wait forever for the community to unite behind one proposal and the project falls behind because its not able to adapt to new challenges.
you see, the blocksize isnt such a crucial issue at the moment imo, but if bitcoin wont be able to handle it in a timely matter its a bad sign for future hurdles to come which may be way more important.
sounds like you want a bitcoin "Progressive" edition ... and like the political party of the same name inevitably fall into the inflation trap ... "for the children".
lol what are you talking about
its pretty easy, if you let 5% of the community block whatever decision the 95% majority has choosen your project (whatever it is) will end up fucked up. no matter if its a company, a football-club or a cryptocurrency. its called tyranny of the few.
you can obv discuss if 75% is enough or not, but its ridiculous to expect a community to always go ahead with a 100% consensus.
If somebody is not happy with bitcoin they are free to create altcoin and make great profit. Bitcoin only changes through consensus, thats one of its fundamental features and protections that give it value.
One day some people will be trying to push a change you dont like and you will be happy that your bitcoins are safe.
You get what you invest in and that does not change without consensus, nothing more is promised,.
20.
Post 13789967 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Meant to not change without how much consensus?
Edit: Some of it? All of it?
More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.
Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.
It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.
No because the chain they mine will be not considered valid by nodes. Nodes and users ultimately decide what bitcoin is.
Mining trigger is used simply because its something that can be measured. Node count can be sybiled.
21.
Post 13789979 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.
Its a tradeoff thats not necessary right now. Scaling roadmap is far better plan.
When blocksize increase is needed it will be done.
Gavin backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance are pushing inferior plan to remove the cyptherpunk element of bitcoin development.
22.
Post 13790094 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.
Its a tradeoff thats not necessary right now. Scaling roadmap is far better plan.
When blocksize increase is needed it will be done.
Gavin backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance are pushing inferior plan to remove the cyptherpunk element of bitcoin development.
It's a stalling roadmap and it was created by people who's skill set is programming and cryptography, not business and economics.
Stalling roadmap? Stalling of what? block size increase? Ofcourse it is and thats good. Block size should only be increased when needed. We should try and 'stall' for as long as possible. It trades off decentralisation.
Block size should only be increased when needed.
There has been some incompetent economics coming out of Peter R and the classic camp. G Maxwell seems to have a much better understanding of economics.
Actually when it comes to economic understanding and crypto, I consider Nick Szabo as a thought leader. He is ofcourse very much against classic coup.
23.
Post 13790188 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
The facts:
1. Bitcoin would NOT have failed if Satoshi had chosen a 2MB limit rather than 1MB, to say otherwise exposes you for the complete idiot you would be. Therefore, any FUD about 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda.
2. Adding 2MB now means nothing as far as the technology, network and platform is concerned.., refusing to do so is simply because you do not want to establish a precedent that you can increase the block size to address scalability issues. Why? because the necessity of a sidechain solution for scaling moves further down the road.
There is nothing else to talk about.
Facts:
1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging, is FUD propaganda.
I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.
3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda
24.
Post 13790239 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Here are some more
FACTS for you:
After I made my last post I sent transaction to myself, confirmed no problems AS ALWAYS. About 4 min in-fact, you beauty.
https://blockchain.info/tx-index/b907009f9ef1e20d9d8d983e2c72186230be91ccfaf742e68caa1b95eb675af8Hearn, Gavin et al also confirmed as FUD spreading propagandists.
Block size increase is not needed now, when it will be needed it will be increased, the core roadmap is the best plan going forward.
Everything else is based on a FUD manufactured crisis.
25.
Post 13790288 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
The facts:
If half a million people wanted to send a single bitcoin to another address the same day, THEY COULD NOT ALL DO IT, NO MATTER HOW HIGH A FEE THEY PAID.
People know this and so we do not buy bitcoin. This is why the price is falling. Price will continue to fall or stagnate until capacity is raised.
Facts:
1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging, is FUD propaganda. I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.
Agreed, given current hobby status.
2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.
Agreed, given current hobby status.
3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda
Agreed, given current hobby status.
Thats why the best way going forward is to increase TPS via-segwit short term (superior to hardfork increase) and payment-channels, hard-fork, lightining, other methods long term.
No need for this contentious, chaotic hard fork attempt that is really power grab in disguise, and trades off decentralisation.
26.
Post 13790384 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Maxwell is the one attempting a power grab
FUD
badly needed upgrade
FUD
are acting according to their own interest and not the best interest of the network.
FUD
is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.
FUD
If we ignore personalities, and focus on pure technical solutions. Segwit is far superior to 1mb hardfork increase. Thats all as far as facts.
27.
Post 13790434 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Maxwell is the one attempting a power grab
FUD
badly needed upgrade
FUD
are acting according to their own interest and not the best interest of the network.
FUD
is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.
FUD
If we ignore personalities, and focus on pure technical solutions. Segwit is far superior to 1mb hardfork increase. Thats all as far as facts.
Calling my argument "FUD" is not a counter-argument. Why is my charge of conflict of interest FUD? Do you even understand the charge? Blockstream's business model does not work without a fee market, but creating a fee market now, before a critical mass of users are formed, will prevent the growth that is necessary for such a fee market to economically function. If that's FUD, tell me why it's FUD.
Its FUD because:
1) devs had these ideas before they started their business to promote their vision not other way round.
2) devs have many bitcoin so its in their interest for it to have best possible outcome for bitcoin
3) devs have history of providing open source and free work and being motivated by problems, ideas not money,
4) accusations of conflict of interest can be made at anybody like Gavin, Hearn, coinbase etc. The accusations are made selectively only against core devs who have different ideas to you.
5) Most devs, and people opposing classic have nothing to do with blockstream.
28.
Post 13791386 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Meant to not change without how much consensus?
Edit: Some of it? All of it?
More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.
Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.
It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.
No because the chain they mine will be not considered valid by nodes. Nodes and users ultimately decide what bitcoin is.
Mining trigger is used simply because its something that can be measured. Node count can be sybiled.
You know any significant miners that are not nodes? No, neither do I.
Here's the dirty little secret nobody wants to discuss: pure nodes have no power. None whatsoever.
What miners want, miners will get. The only counterbalance is the prospect that the users will abandon the coin en masse.
Its actually the other-way round miners do not have real power. It does not matter or effect bitcoin users if miners choose to mine a different chain.
The only effect on majority of nodes will be that hash power would drastically drop, and therefore confirmation times would increase. That is only until difficulty adjusts.
But miners can not do that anyway as they would bankrupt themselves by mining a worthless coin. They have to mine the coin that has the nodes and users.
29.
Post 13791411 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
What? I was not aware the scaling problem was so high!
Yes. It is. The clear trend is that transactions per unit time are increasing. At some point in the very near future, bitcoin will hit a ceiling that it has not before hit - the situation where blocks are persistently full.
Why are most people saying that everything is fine and that scaling will come then?
I think BJA would argue against "everything fine". I'm in the camp of "things are gonna soon suck, and will continue to suck, until the pain rises to the point where most admit things need doing".
We are nowhere close to "everything will suck soon"
tm. You guys have been saying that for a year now btw.
If we do nothing for a year (we will though) it would simply mean that fees might increase about a cent or two. Actually fees used to be higher in the past.
Segwit is quickest and easiest short term TPS increase anyhow.
30.
Post 13803142 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Why does anybody push this crazy chaotic, contencious (75% 28 days) hard-fork when we have a far superior solution in segwit.
Could everybody please chill and not belive the FUD about capacity cliff. Bitcoin doing as good as ever.
31.
Post 13803304 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Why does anybody push this crazy chaotic, contencious (75% 28 days) hard-fork when we have a far superior solution in segwit.
Could everybody please chill and not belive the FUD about capacity cliff. Bitcoin doing as good as ever.
Because, just maybe, they dont share your blind faith?
Blind faith in what, Gavin? You think Segwit wont be implemented? Its already running on testnet and wallet developers are working with core devs to integrate. Most wallet devs said its relatively simple.
32.
Post 13804122 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Why does anybody push this crazy chaotic, contencious (75% 28 days) hard-fork when we have a far superior solution in segwit.
Could everybody please chill and not belive the FUD about capacity cliff. Bitcoin doing as good as ever.
Because, just maybe, they dont share your blind faith?
Blind faith in what, Gavin? You think Segwit wont be implemented? Its already running on testnet and wallet developers are working with core devs to integrate. Most wallet devs said its relatively simple.
That statement is just waffle. Capacity and segwit are 2 different issues. Are you saying segwit is a capacity solution? I'm sure that will be news to its developers as they wrote it to solve a very different problem set.
Or are you suggesting that it is a capacity solution by virtue of its radical reformatting of block structure, and that that is in some way less risky than the 2Mb bump?
How do you feel about the segwit kludge of pushing its commitment into the coinbase tx? You ok with that design approach? What was the motivation for it? Expediency, efficiency or just so that they would not have to sell segwit as an evil HF?
Segwit gives the same capacity increase as your hard-fork, if thats not a capacity solution that how is hard fork capacity solution?
Its much better tho as its a soft-fork and gives many other improvements. Among them it fixes malleability which is needed for much better capacity increases down the line. The hard-fork offers nothing in that department.
33.
Post 13804278 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
It doesn't give the same capacity increases even in the best case scenario, which would be if everyone adopted it straight away.
Hard-fork gives nothing until everybody adopts it. Segwit gives benefits to anybody who wants higher capacity without needing to wait for anybody else.
For some transactions It gives much better capacity increase then hard-fork, for others its slightly smaller.
And off-course segwit provides numerous other benefits including ability to have real massive scaling solutions in future (payment channels, lightning network).
Hard-fork does 0 in that department.
Segwit is absolute win, win, win in every department.
Hard-fork is only being pushed by Gavin and coinbase propaganda because they are trying to take control of bitcoin.
34.
Post 13804491 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Segwit gives the same capacity increase as your hard-fork,
No it does not. 1.3x to 1.7x in absolute best case. How does it do this? By creating a completely new, arbitrary blockchain. Thats so cool, isn't it?
if thats not a capacity solution that how is hard fork capacity solution?
HF bumps capacity to 2Mb, Were you not aware of that?
Its much better tho as its a soft-fork and gives many other improvements.
This is complete bullshit. Its only a SF because of a kludge - which you wont even talk about. Segwit is much bettter as a HF
Among them it fixes malleability which is needed for much better capacity increases down the line.
How does that effect capacity now or 'down the line'? It does no such thing. You are throwing anything into your argument now.
The hard-fork offers nothing in that department.
It does not need to. We are not trying to change bitcoin so we can sell it to the banking industry as a private blockchain.
All the 'fixes' you are putting in are at the behest of AXA and the other institutional investors that have bought bitcoin from blockstream.
The expected benefit for standard transactions is about 1.7mb, best case is 4mb. its 2mb for 2-of-2 multisig.
"kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends. What makes it a kludge? Gavin said so? It cleans up the structure and fixes many problems like malleability.
"How does that effect capacity now or 'down the line'? It does no such thing."
Payment channels and lightning network can not work properly without malleability fixed. Segwit does that, hard fork offers 0.
Payment channels and lightning network will enable scaling orders of magnitude bigger then measly chaotic hardfork increase by 1mb.
The core scaling road map is more then good enough. Gavin is causing disruption and chaos because of his ego, once we ignore him price will increase and everybody will be happy.
35.
Post 13804710 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
... "kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends. What makes it a kludge? Gavin said so? It cleans up the structure and fixes many problems like malleability. ...
Kludge. Perfect fit. Also amazing ignorance on your part.
quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain.
None of those are true re segwit, what makes it a kludge?
Its just a meaningless propaganda term.
edit: Actually that definition probably fits the hard fork increase perfectly. It is quick-and-dirty (gavin even said something to that effect himself). inelegant (magic numbers), inefficient (simply trades off decentralisation and makes nodes harder to run unlike segwit)
I am opposed to the hard-fork Kludge, segwit is the efficient elegant solution.
36.
Post 13804719 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case.
So why dont you explain to me what makes it a Kludge?
Also, I tried not insult you so please try and not to insult me.
37.
Post 13804839 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
... "kludge" Thats a meaningless self-serving propaganda term invented By Gavin The Fudster and friends. What makes it a kludge? Gavin said so? It cleans up the structure and fixes many problems like malleability. ...
Kludge. Perfect fit. Also amazing ignorance on your part.
quick-and-dirty solution that is clumsy, inelegant, inefficient, difficult to extend and hard to maintain.
None of those are true re segwit, what makes it a kludge?
Its just a meaningless propaganda term?
It's clumsy (overcomplex and inelegant), and unreplicable (you can't segwit your segwit, " difficult to extend"), sooner or later blocksize cap will need to be raised.
So fixing a prior kludge (1MB max_block_size) with *another, goldbergian one* is the epitome of kludginess
What is overly-complex or inelegant about it? The current structure of transactions with the signature being part of it but malleable is inelegant and causes many problems. Segwit is an elegant solution to that.
It also allows elegant scaling solutions to be developed down the road.
As opposed to the inefficient hard-fork kludge that can not be extended as it comes at price of making huge nodes, huge block-chains decentralisation etc.
38.
Post 13804882 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case.
So why dont you explain to me what makes it a Kludge?
Also, I tried not insult you so please try and not to insult me.
I never said segwit itself was a kludge. (its inelegant at best)
If you read back to my
original post, I asked you about how making segwit SF-able was a kludge. Maybe answer that question.
segwit should be a HF. Making it a SF is political and destroys most of their credibility.
Again why is segwit as soft-fork a kludge? because Gavin the FUDster said so? Its a much better to have soft-forks then hard forks and allows capacity to be increased immediately. With hard forks the entire network has to move before anybody gets benefit.
Is not the big motivation to increase capacity?
39.
Post 13804957 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
The current structure of transactions with the signature being part of it but malleable is inelegant and causes many problems.
Wrong. The malleability isnt a big issue in bitcoin now, but will become more serious with the functionality expansion required for LN.
Its solving a problem that will be brought about by LN.
Wrong, I would guess most wallet or bitcoin developers would tell you that malleability and dealing with it is a pain in the Ass. It is for me. I will hazard a guess that you have not done any bitcoin development if you said that?
Firstly have you forgoten Mt. Gox and how all exchanges went offline to fix their malleability problems?
I remember wasshisname from LTB talking about it recently because of problems it was causing his platform due to difficulties related to transaction chaining.
Malleability is a big annoying thing that pops up all the time to cause problems.
40.
Post 13813654 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Unfortunately classic is not quite dead yet.
When it is and the threat of chaotic, contentious and unnecessary (segwit is superior) hard fork is over, we can all look forward to a massive price increase (like move from 230->450 after xt collapse) and bitcoin moving forward.
These bombing runs from Gavin and coinbase are getting tiring.
I doubt they will be able to centralise bitcoin development under their control.
41.
Post 13813975 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Unfortunately classic is not quite dead yet.
When it is and the threat of chaotic, contentious and unnecessary (segwit is superior) hard fork is over, we can all look forward to a massive price increase (like move from 230->450 after xt collapse) and bitcoin moving forward.
These bombing runs from Gavin and coinbase are getting tiring.
I doubt they will be able to centralise bitcoin development under their control.
Why unfortunately? Isn't it always good to have different possibilities? you never know what might happen
I personnally support all the coins! Classic, Core, Litecoin...
It's precisely because Bitcoin Classic isn't an alt they all go mental.
No its because I want bitcoin development lead by people who:
value decetralisation, provide features like confidential transactions etc.
as opposed to people who:
visit cia, join organisations that want to work with government to police bitcoin, float ideas like blacklists of transactions, and do not care about ordinary node users etc.
I don't want bitcoin to be crippled by these people into paypal 2.0 (except slower)
42.
Post 13825605 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012412.html coup attempt looks dead in the water. Citizens of Bitcoin rejoice! Pump incoming!
(until another Gavin/coinbase bombing run?)
43.
Post 13839805 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.43h):
Just as we start to raise into mid 380's these classic people make another bombing run and we are back in 370s. Hopefully coinbase and block-chain alliance buddies do not release any supporting statements and classic continues its fade into obscurity. This will mean price increase.
44.
Post 13948363 (copy this link) (by danielW) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.45h):
I am so ready for moon