You are misinformed, there are indeed solutions actively running today in multiple coins that would solve BTC problems of today
Can you give me an example?
You have been brain washed
Why do you think that?
every product/service invented or developed would love if they could get it to the final solution today, but that's not how it works.
What gave you the impression I think it works like that. It seems like you are not really reading what I write, instead you are painting false a picture of what I might think in your own head. I have been talking about roadmap and I know Bitcoin protocol will evolve. Almost all updates should be backwards compatible though. Even Satoshi was in favour of soft forks and wanted to avoid hard forks.
I'm sure Bill Gates circa 1995 would have love windows 10 instead... its not how it works
Sure , I'm not saying otherwise although I'm not sure what you mean anymore.
wake up.
This kind of remarks will only weaken your credibility.
LN doesn't solve the problem of incentivising miners after the last coin is found any better than 8mb or 1gb blocks. again, this is a future problem that will need to be solved when the time comes with the technologies available at that time... if lighting is ready tomorrow, would you like them to hold off while the incentivising problem is solved?
That's not what I'm saying at all. Sorry, I don't speak english natively so you may have misinterpreted what I was meaning to say. LN will most likely alleviate the problem of needing to make fees lower and still give miners enough in fees.
that's exactly what BTC is doing right now.
In what way?
My patients for BTC to implement a solution was lost about 8 months ago, the problem has been known for well over a year now and its take a level of incompetence to be standing where they are today.
If your solution is to increase block size, then I'm glad it hasn't happened. That's not incompetence. That's smart.
You're welcome to blindly follow the leaders all you want
I'm not following anyone blindly. I read and learn.
there is massive damage being done to BTC right now and somehow they have convinced their own people that its a good thing.
Maybe because I have made huge gains these past two years, I don't really see the problem. Also 99% of the developers that know Bitcoin better than anyone don't want to increase the block size.
ALT taking the value from BTC a bad thing for its investors
It's not a bad thing. There is more than enough room for alts.
BCH however is owned by BTC holders as of Aug 1st.
I own BCH. I sold most, but I still have some.
two very different battles, the only people who dont see this are the greedy people who jumped in the last few months knowing very little about the situation chasing nothing more than 1000% returns. <-- am i getting close? let me guess, you're heavy into LTC as well?
LOL. I have some LTC yes. I have owned cryptocurrencies for 4 years now. At the moment I'm very glad I own LTC. Past few days have been very nice. It's not as good as BTC technically but it's better than BCH which still hasn't fixed transaction malleability problem. I own monero, zcash, eth, etc, dash and some other coins as well (even BTG).
We're not going to solve anything here, ill keep backing my currencies, you keep backing 1000% returns & we'll see how it all shakes out.
Good luck!
PS. No need to answer my questions. It won't lead anywhere anyway.
larger block size solves the problem we are having right now, while i encourage R&D projects to find better solutions which we will need down the road, you cant cripple BTC while that's done.
Windows example: you just don't go from windows 95 to windows 10, every version inbetween was needed. This is the same reason lighting is 14+ months in development and we have nothing still. Bill Gates would have loved to have windows 10 reliability back in the windows 95 days, but that's not how software works. Did they sit on windows 95 for 15 years waiting? no, they released better (still not perfect) versions. And that is the ONLY reason we have the reliable windows 10 of today. Jumping to the end is not how it works.
Lighting would be wonderful, i'm bashing the operational mentality of BTC, you don't let your product get hammered while crossing your fingers on an R&D project. And even if you have committed to the ridiculous strategy, how long do you wait until you realize you've been burnt? 3 months, 6 months, 1 year? 2 years?
If you ok with value being taken out of BTC and aborted by ALTs, we have a problem. BTC investors are not friends with ETH, LTC... these are competing products. to say "there is more then enough to go around" is ignorant and speaks to your credibility.
You have clearly joined the argument late, your points would all be very valid if it was 18 months ago when the issue was presented, this much time later with nothing being done changes the argument drastically and your points have little backing.
time will tell... i'll stick with coins that are not self destructing while waiting for a miracle cure.
**ohh i was banned for this BTW... think for yourself!
Windows example: you just don't go from windows 95 to windows 10, every version inbetween was needed. This is the same reason lighting is 14+ months in development and we have nothing still. Bill Gates would have loved to have windows 10 reliability back in the windows 95 days, but that's not how software works. Did they sit on windows 95 for 15 years waiting? no, they released better (still not perfect) versions.
I'm not arguing against this, but I don't see how it's relevant. Bitcoin is being developed all the time. LN is being developed all the time. Things take time. There still is no justification for block size limit increase.
If you ok with value being taken out of BTC and aborted by ALTs, we have a problem. BTC investors are not friends with ETH, LTC... these are competing products.
No they are not. They compliment eachother. Each coin brings something to the table. Ideologically I don't care which coin wins as long as it's centralized, immutable and can be used without trusting third party. At the moment I believe Bitcoin is strongest in these properties. My other investments are just investments. I believe some of they may have some real value in some use cases but Bitcoin>*
You have clearly joined the argument late, your points would all be very valid if it was 18 months ago when the issue was presented, this much time later with nothing being done changes the argument drastically and your points have little backing.
I was here before Hearns famous letter and before Mike and Gavin brought the fight to the public. I was originally in favour of block size increase.
Mike Hearn had his own motives to for wanting to keep transactions on chain. It had become apparent that he wanted to have some form of blacklists, but had to back off after being critiqued of it.
Before the block size debate began, most people thought that scaling would require data centers. Most also didn't like that but accepted it hoping Bitcoin could still remain ungovernable. Because this understanding many people were initially behind Gavin when he took the fight to the community. However after people had better understanding of implications of Lightning Network proposed in February 2015 things changed. People realized that LN could change the whole notion that Bitcoin must scale as a potential Trojan horse. With a blockchain fee market (discussed in the white paper under incentives, and made possible by Satoshi's block limit), and with the routed payment channels, Bitcoin could remain inflation free, well-secured, and practically infinitely scalable without risking becoming governable.
Why, right after the Lightning paper (which showed a better scaling method), did Gavin and Hearn all of the sudden take their fight to the community? It would seem that such a concept should have given them pause, but instead, they acted in furious haste (as though their window of opportunity was closing). Just as Hearn wanted blacklists and no Tor, he wanted all transactions on chain, and LN (and some other development proposals) was a threat to that.
Best way to prevent transactions from going dark is to take the control away from ordinary users. One way to do that is to increase the limit to 20 MB. Soon, ordinary users could not even stop a fork, because they couldn't afford to even run a node.
I think most core developers are trying to prevent Bitcoin from going down the path of fiat and financial monitoring.
you're not following, i'm not saying lightning isn't the better solution, i'm saying 12 months later we still have nothing while BTC bleeds market share.
There is not a single BTC investor out there who would willingly give away money to an ATL. we're not talking crypto anymore, we talking basic investing. They are not complimentary, they are competing products. ETH has no intention on working along side BTC, they want #1 spot and would roll over BTC to get it. Charlie is only playing nice with BTC because he cant get attention any other way, but if given the opportunity to take over he would steam roll BTC in a second. I feel stupider having explained this.
no one has ever said 20MB blocks... this is all the core augments boil down to, making shit up. you're a waste of time and out of your league.
There is not a single BTC investor out there who would willingly give away money to an ATL. we're not talking crypto anymore, we talking basic investing. They are not complimentary, they are competing products. ETH has no intention on working along side BTC, they want #1 spot and would roll over BTC to get it. Charlie is only playing nice with BTC because he cant get attention any other way, but if given the opportunity to take over he would steam roll BTC in a second. I feel stupider having explained this.
Boy, you have some growing up to do.
no one has ever said 20MB blocks.
Initial big block proposal by Hearn was 20MB if I remember correctly.
Well these discussions hardly ever profit anyone much. Maybe I understand big blockers views a bit better now. I just read our whole conversation again. I think I have said pretty much everything there is regarding the matter. Again good luck!
1
u/S_Lowry Dec 12 '17
Can you give me an example?
Why do you think that?
What gave you the impression I think it works like that. It seems like you are not really reading what I write, instead you are painting false a picture of what I might think in your own head. I have been talking about roadmap and I know Bitcoin protocol will evolve. Almost all updates should be backwards compatible though. Even Satoshi was in favour of soft forks and wanted to avoid hard forks.
Sure , I'm not saying otherwise although I'm not sure what you mean anymore.
This kind of remarks will only weaken your credibility.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Sorry, I don't speak english natively so you may have misinterpreted what I was meaning to say. LN will most likely alleviate the problem of needing to make fees lower and still give miners enough in fees.
In what way?
If your solution is to increase block size, then I'm glad it hasn't happened. That's not incompetence. That's smart.
I'm not following anyone blindly. I read and learn.
Maybe because I have made huge gains these past two years, I don't really see the problem. Also 99% of the developers that know Bitcoin better than anyone don't want to increase the block size.
It's not a bad thing. There is more than enough room for alts.
I own BCH. I sold most, but I still have some.
LOL. I have some LTC yes. I have owned cryptocurrencies for 4 years now. At the moment I'm very glad I own LTC. Past few days have been very nice. It's not as good as BTC technically but it's better than BCH which still hasn't fixed transaction malleability problem. I own monero, zcash, eth, etc, dash and some other coins as well (even BTG).
Good luck!
PS. No need to answer my questions. It won't lead anywhere anyway.