Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

This guy thinks you're all wrong about SegWit:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/btcc-s-sampson-mow-on-block-size-the-bitcoin-community-must-see-through-manipulation-keep-calm-and-write-code-1458061357

That must mean you're right.

Money quote:

We've long passed the point where the block size can just be [an] arbitrary number – that was during the time of Satoshi. We're now at the point where block size should be determined by technical and network constraints.

Umm, ok. So, maybe assign it a symbol? The symbol formerly known as ...

I think Samson would love Bitcoin Unlimited, if he could understand it.

 

[adamstgbit]

what's right and what's wrong is a matter of opinion.

we'll never reach consensus on "the best way forward", but we will move forward, 1 bloody step at a time.

 

[freetrader]

Old Samson is ever the joker:

If Satoshi intended that everything should be done on-chain forever, there would be no block reward halvings.

太好笑了

@adamstgbit : Samson Mow likes to think he has controversial opinions. To most people, he's just plain wrong most of the time when it comes to Bitcoin.

But - he is funny.

He is also a hypocrite of distinction.

Speaking about Classic:

There are people, like myself, who think the 75 percent mining threshold is too low for activation.

Meanwhile the planned SegWit soft fork activates at 75% too, even though it only locks in at 95%.
But he isn't complaining about SegWit's 75% threshold, is he?

If you guessed no, you guessed right. He prefers to speak about

the need for Bitcoin businesses to adopt Segregated Witness which will increase block size

---

In other interesting news, censorship now coming to Chinese forums controlled by Core loyalist miners:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4aj7n5/haobtc_ceo_blockstream_has_absolutely_no_relation/

 

[adamstgbit]

If you ignore all opinions that are wrong, what's right and what's wrong is a matter of opinion.

Old Samson is wrong because he's been fed lies...

 

[cypherdoc]

interesting:


olivier [5:00 AM] Btw those ipv6 nodes, if you check with vultr, they are individual nodes (each with their own subnet)
[5:00] Its not 1 nodes with 500 addresses or something, its really individual nodes

 

[AdrianX]

Anyone good at infographics?

@Richy_T what info are you wanting to communicate?

 

[cypherdoc]

funny as hell.

@bitsko running circles around those jugheads on Core Slack.

 

[AdrianX]

its a rushed way

the devs feel confident this is the way forward and they dont like having to explain themselves, so they are taking advantage segwit's scaling effect to sell the idea and avoid a lot of endless/pointless debating. change scares poeple, so they don't like to talk about how segwit is a game changer, they would rather we talk about how segwit is a life saver.

there method's are questionable, but effective.

the more i hear about segwit the more i like it, and the more i want it to be rolled out slowly and well reviewed, and cleaned to the point of perfection

In my view they should do the 2MB first simply to buy more time to really get segwit to perfection.

A delay makes it almost impossible to launch SW. If the 2MB fork came first, SW as proposed would require a network that could handle the equivalent of 8MB blocks, we know from many independant tests, the most conservative of which say that the network can only handle 4MB blocks today, so a 2MB Hard Fork would leave SegWit dead in the water.

 

[go1111111]

They obviously don't believe their own arguments, because the second one of the arguments they've used in the past would contradict something they are pursuing in the present, they drop it like a hot potato and feign ignorance if you point it out.

I think people's ability to self-deceive is powerful enough that most Core devs / supporters are actually sincere, even while they engage in rationalization and shady debate tactics. When people get in that "my side vs. their side" mode of thinking, it's very hard for them to be rational.

Nobody understands why we need to get rid of malleability.

I see a lot of posts lately about this. Malleability makes Lightning much easier. The reason is that Lightning depends on having a chain of unpublished transactions that depend on each other. For instance tx A will be on the blockchain, then you'll have a tx B which you don't publish which spends an output of A, then I'll have a tx C which spends an output of B. So I know that when you publish B, I can publish C and collect my funds that are tied up in the channel. With malleability, you or someone else can modify B before you publish it, changing the txid, and then my tx C is invalid.

Although I don't think replacing on-chain scaling with Lightning is a good idea, Lightning is still awesome for micropayments and instant payments.

 

[Erdogan]

New DDOS attack ongoing. Dropping incoming on 8333 with iptables. Nodes still running fine on ipv6.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Erdogan

yeah, i noticed.

how and why are you running nodes off ipv6?

 

[adamstgbit]

A delay makes it almost impossible to launch SW. If the 2MB fork came first, SW as proposed would require a network that could handle the equivalent of 8MB blocks, we know from many independant tests, the most conservative of which say that the network can only handle 4MB blocks today, so a 2MB Hard Fork would leave SegWit dead in the water.

sounds like BS, i mean even core agrees to do segwit + 2MB

1 year is the difference between dead in the water and Core is willing to accept it? no way...

and the way i understand it there is no block limit that really makes bitcoin "dead in the water", the only consequence is you need higher end hardware to run a full node.

 

[dlareg]

I am very happy that everyone is talking about segwit and what a terrible hack it is!

I recently watched this one-hour video on the Lightning Network by Poon and Dryja and they 100% said that the Lightning Network simply WILL NOT WORK unless malleability is fixed.


Slides are here:

http://lightning.network/lightning-network.pdf

So basically right from the horse's mouth--Lightning will not work, payment channels will not work, if there is any form of malleability available.

 

[cypherdoc]

SW, CSV, CLTV, & RBF are also critical to LN working properly. what do you think Core dev has been working on all year?

 

[adamstgbit]

@Richy_T what info are you wanting to communicate?

all the reasons why segwit is a bad idea.

 

[Richy_T]

@Richy_T what info are you wanting to communicate?

I was thinking one illustrating all the segwit shenanigans would be good. People have fallen for the rockstar publicity and just fall asleep when it comes to the nitty gritty.

 

[AdrianX]

OK @Richy_T I'd love to make one if some one can distill the points (call it the brief - I can provide critical feedback ;-) it would be great once the info is distilled if someone can filter it through reddit to for some extra critical rinsing- that'll also give me a good idea of what general understandings are lacking too. It would be great if the info (brief) could be designed to be non adversarial to appease the r/bitcoin mods.

I've got great hopes for this image it's going to be awesome, the bitcoin I know and love is on the line.
(I'm going to want each claim referenced to the white paper as I don't think Blockstream or their shills are going to like this)

I'd also like some input on opinions of what a viewer should come away with as the fundamental understanding once its been viewed.

one concept is a side by side comparison of a transaction considering an equivalent HF limit increase.
all input welcome.

 

[adamstgbit]

the "segwit is a softfork" has been utterly debunked https://bitco.in/forum/threads/segregated-witness-sotf-fork-segwit-pros-and-cons.986/

 

[rocks]

This is the basic problem with soft fork SW, it removes the very basic security property of Bitcoin where your coins are as secure as your private key is. SFSW breaks the security model of only needing to trust your private key.

In Bitcoin today, your coins are as secure as your private key is. No one, not even a majority of miners, can spend coins without your key. It is that simple. Miners can refuse to confirm transactions, or change the ordering of future transactions. But long term coins with many confirmations are untouchable.

But soft fork SW changes that, coins are sent to an ANYONE can spend output. Now you have to also trust miners to continue to "honor" the rules of SW and to not spend those coins. Yes, in theory they will honor the rules, but it is an extra security weakness that does not need to be there.

Hard fork SW does not have this issue, but it is not being used.

It is almost as if the entire dev team want to break bitcoin so they can then tell everyone to use their more secure off chain solutions.

I will never send a coin to an ANYONE can spend output, it is insanity.

 

[cypherdoc]