/btcpol/ - Bitcoin Politics General

Mandatory core shill:
medium.com/@WhalePanda/segwit2x-the-broken-agreement-e9035a453c05

You fucking jew rat bastard. You fucking faggot I wish I knew your home address so I can come and kill you, pathetic faggot.

> DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.

dcg.co/who-we-are/

Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"

Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."

Fuck you, jew scum.

Blockstream/Core wants to sell sidechains/lightning hubs to big financial companies.
Basically steeling tx fees from miners and removing the trustless nature of bitcoin once you use them.

Slow down turbo.

okay, call me jew rat bastard or whatever, I'm just a simple miner here, 8x Antminer S9 units, but I want to raise the blocksize.

You get it right yes.
The thing is, Segwit is just a 1.7x increase. We need more than that, and even when LN is out, you need more than 1.7MB to accomodate a lot of them.

so why do people want Core over B2X?

This whole thing is a mess.

Did you change to btc1 node?

everything is dependent on adoption
you answered your own question. It's also possible powerful people have realised they cannot stop bitcoin but they were able to lower the price through the fork letting them buy in.

Thats why we are here lol.

Well I dont know, I'm in for s2x.

BCH's way of scaling is unsustainable in the long run, for now its fine.

For me S2X is the best compromise of the three scaling proposals.

Yes. I'm connecting to my own remote BTC1 node and electrum.

lol, you have no clue about that fork

what a cuck, you will never make it, sorry

More Lukejr memes.
twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/927752600350576640

XDD I never thought anyone is really this retarded on here, i was srsly sure it's all just LARPing for fun

Thought on jeff garzik the sole dev?

Core has gotten us to where we are today. They actually care about the fundamentals which make BTC worthwhile. EG. Decentralization and the ability for even the smallest participant to run a node.

2x is a corporate take-over attempt, the first step in destroying BTC.

If BTC cannot survive this attack, it wasn't worth it in the first place.

We will shake it off like the rubbish it is.

(Holding BTC since '12, seen it all, Unlimited/XT/Classic/2X = All similar attempts to hijack.)

Scaling is more than just increasing block size, if anything increasing the blocksize is the most inelegant way of doing it. NO2X is not against increasing block size, however it is against non consensus decisions like the NYA which shits upon the tenets of Bitcoin like decentralization and consensus of the majority.

Lightning network is optional, you can use the legacy way of transacting if needed.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
/btcpol/ - Bitcoin Politics General
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
19Q4c29Qg8L9novNZcDyRFNYodDkDkRRfF
IPmn0nr59XJIlGTVNBkmU4tOSHkNJzkfG6IkYXZs9fQhJ3GgPAqr09vQ0semoy4OviwjmpfUeJ0pwd4tZU0lOSc=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

There’s two arguments:

1) The actual scaling mechanism. While you can scale through block size increase, this is both inelegant (not really a technical solution, just "brute force") and there’s the side channel patents some devs might want to capitalize on (I guess).

2) Keeping the possibility for everyone to run a full-node for himself. If as a user you are not running a full node, this is basically centralization as well: You blindly believe what network nodes tell you, without validating for yourself; or even worse, you don’t even hold your own private key (e.g. because your btc are on coinbase). And a block size increase just leads to full-nodes using much more resources. Obviously the blockchain grows faster, but e.g. RAM requirements also increase, and faster than linearly. Currently you need 2 GB, with 8 GB blocks (iirc) you’d already need 32 GB.
The less normal users run full-nodes, the more BTC becomes a kind of service run by a select few parties ( exchanges, miners, web wallet providers) rather than a real "p2p" network.

thats bad really. but this is a compromise for a network upgrade.
Nobody has control of a decentralized network.
Stop telling yourself that core is the owner of bitcoin.

Both are right.
I dont even like how BCH is going, if they just keep forcing the blocksize increase, it will be unsustainable in the long run.
But I dont even know why cant everyone compromise with just 2MB.
hell even some images posted here are 2MB.

bigger blocks also open the gates to all sort of spam on the network, and the blockchain becomes huuuuge in size, so the average folk cant just download it on a regular drive

Go back to ledddit and suck theymos’s cock you drooling retard.

Would the side channels be public to everyone, just as the BTC chain blocks?

I don't see a point for every person to run a full node. That is overkill. But of course, I see that, too few full nodes would be centralization. Community has to agree to some middle ground at eventually.

things should be as simple as they can be but no simpler. the only time scaling by blocksize increase should be avoided is when it will take out more than an acceptable number of independent miners or independent nodes.

There is no technical argument that 8mb blocks centralise mining more than 1%. There is an argument that 32gb required to run a node on an 8mb block will centralise nodes too much. Satoshi himself said we can create a node reward (just as we created a mining reward) to increase independent nodes. The other thing to remember is moores law 32gb will be nothing in a few years. Bringing in segwit is never necessary lightning network does not require off chain scaling.

The risk of node centralisation is outweighed by the guarantee of high fees and slow transactions that a 1mb block creates and a 2mb block will have next year.

you dont have a clue how this shit works, do you?

yesterday they mined a 1.6mb block (biggest in history)

20% of the transactions where using segwit obviously

4300BTC on that block, around 0.7btc paid in fees

increasing blocksize (even to 2mb) would make half the world population un-able to download a BTC node

it is already quite hard to get it up to date in most ocuntries, heck I have the best internet connection in south america and it takes days to download it

help this nigga out, what does better Pow mean? better proof of work, which is more profitable to mine, so the miners switch from 2x to this one?
if that's true, how will it be done?

Planning trillion dollar decisions on the assumptions 1) past results determine the future and 2) innovations will bail us out is how we ended up with the current bloated financial system. If bitcoin acts like this, instead of a revolution it becomes essentially the innovation bailing out fractional reserve banking, keeping the same power balance (a few thousand new millionaires doesn't change that, globally insignificant).

proof of work algorithm.
if core changes proof of work algorithm, the mining asics right now will be useless in mining bitcoin.

>moore's law

aren't we at the limit of that already?

I'm pretty sure we are

>Would the side channels be public to everyone, just as the BTC chain blocks?
Lots of stuff about side channels is still to be fleshed out; I’ll tell you what I know.

The idea spread by devs (and there’s a vid of a live demo prototype, too) is that any two persons can open a channel between them to repeatedly transact on, while only paying 1 fee for opening and 1 fee for eventually closing (it can stay open for months, there’s no real limit) the channel.
Obviously there’s two cases where it really starts making sense, 1) you open a channel to some kind of company (e.g. amazon) that you often have to pay money to, and save yourself some fees; 2) you open a channel to some kind of "payment hub" that hold open channels to lots of parties and routes your payment through these channels, so that you only need 1 channel for the ability to transact cheaply towards lots of parties.
Now the second case obviously involves some kind of wider centralization, and you’d maybe apply to such a payment hub in the way you apply for a bank account or a credit card, also being billed a regular fee. A company like Amazon might decide to only take payments from a select few payment hubs and no direct BTC transfers, so you’d be stuck with having to get onto one of these hubs in order to pay with BTC at amazon.
Now whether you think this stuff is problematic or great tech or whatever is up to you, but obviously the normal bitcoin network keeps working alongside such a model and any party can still agree to receive a direct btc payment from you, just like now.

>muh ebil jews
kek, who are the juden now

tx senpai. but how does it help the cause of the core btx? this means that all the miners will be behind s2x, doesn't it?

thanks for the read mate

decisions should be based on evidence. you're trying to suggest we shouldn't take moores law into account when choosing blocksize, that would seem to be a decision based on ignoring evidence for no reason rather than taking evidence into account.

if you have some evidence that moores law will stop then that would be a reason to not consider it in block size

cont:

Now about this "they hold patents" rumor I honestly have no deeper idea, maybe a BCC or S2X shill can shed some light on it. Googling brings this here as the first best source, but it seems a bit speculative: falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/

In any case, if there really are applicable patents, I presume this would apply to companies employing the technology (good luck shutting down anonymous individuals using your math/tech on the btc network) and they’d shift some of the patent cost onto their users obviously.

I think we're reaching or have reached the theoretical limit
can't make them smaller, can only group a bunch of small transistors together

PoW change is considered for a situation in which a significant majority of miners side with S2X anyways.
If you cannot get them back, changing the PoW allows tapping into other computing resources.
It’s not a practical example, but consider they switch to ETH’s PoW algo: Suddenly all ETH miners have the option to mine BTC, and if enough of them do, the network keeps going.

You’re welcome.

Just throwing this in as a thought: Trend in the last years has been away from plain capacity increments (more GB, more GHz) to other improvements like more processor cores and HDD->SSD.
Ofc. storing blockchain might be an incentive for people to start purchasing HDDs again, but for the last few years I think overall storage space on stock PCs has remained rather stagnant, as people have chosen a switch to SSDs over an upgrade in storage capacity.
Streaming services contribute to this.

node centralization due to block size increase is a matter of cost so a gate size limit does not necessarily mean ram will continue to get exponentially cheaper per gigabyte per year.

I know there will be a limit to scaling via block size increase but there's no evidence that limit is 1, 2 or 8mb and core/blockstreams irrational insistence on such limits to the stage that btc is not even a currency anymore shows their true motivations

doesn't necessarily mean ram won't get cheaper i meant

yes there's not much consumer demand for more than 16gb that's why satoshi suggested a node reward when nodes became to cumbersome to run

It is not.
The supporters are mostly brainwashed shills

that's a jew

Yeah, just like there were constant "spam attacks" 2-3 years ago when blocks were not full, right?

But right now btc is unusable for 50% of the world population. Why would these people run a node anyway when there is 0 incentive to do so

>and core/blockstreams irrational insistence on such limits to the stage that btc is not even a currency anymore shows their true motivations

Let’s explore this argument from a different angle.
Basically Bitcoin is both a currency and a store of value (similar to full gold coins) and in both regards it is revolutionary:

Store of value:
- Any sum can be carried around in your pocket or even your head. (Precious metals are pretty heavy, you cannot just carry 100 grand worth of gold around with you.)
- Cannot be seized (except if you’re tortured until you spit out your seed phrase)

Currency:
- Trustless + Quick transfer around the globe
- Cannot be devalued by any controlling instance, contrary to gov-controlled fiat

Now note that everything I could think of for listing under "Currency" (maybe you can bring up more points; I couldn’t) amounts to saying it is also a store of value (trustless + cannot be devalued). Except for "quick transfer around the globe" -- but this alone is something that PayPal can also do.
A way of condensing this line of thought is to say "btc is not a currency."

No they havent core have fucked this up and delayed a blocksize increase for 2 years. They have done the opposite and need to be removed.

"Bitcoin's weakness has always been that there was basically only 1 client - Core, in use. For the first time we have a second client - Btc1, competing against core with a 2MB block size difference. This competition and choice is the Bitcoin protocol working as it was designed. Through this trifecta of checks and balances consensus is reached. Segwit2X is not a takeover. It is simply an upgrade."

bitcoinandtheblockchain.blogspot.co.nz/2017/10/battle-royale-segwit1x-and-segwit2x.html

I completely agree that bitcoin is and needs to be a store of value and a currency at the same time; that is what it gives it the greatest chance of making gold redundant.
The block size limit has degraded the properties of bitcoin that allow it to be a currency (quick transactions and low fees) and it's not like high fees and slow transactions improve it's store of value properties. Core and blockstreams limit just make bitcoin a speculative asset. Without adoption in the facilitation of real economic activity bitcoins worth won't ever be tied to anything but speculation and adoption won't happen without it being as easy to use as cash

Not true.

Classic,XT,Unlimited, all similar attacks.

here's your (You).

If you call them an attack, you have a problem.

segwit 2x is the backup plan for when bch didn't die. If 2x sticks around it will have snuck through segwit. There is no good reason for segwit other than as a way to control and profit off bitcoin.

if it wasn't why would they be forking segwit 2x when it was designed as a compromise to stop a contentious hard fork. The fork happened anyway there should be absolutely no support for 2x if you disagree with on chain scaling you have btc1 if you don't you have bch.

>the greatest chance of making gold redundant.
I think most Bitcoin enthusiasts want to abolish central banking, not gold.

>Without adoption in the facilitation of real economic activity bitcoins worth won't ever be tied to anything but speculation
I think this has it pretty backwards. Fiat is used for "real economic activity" yet it grows more and more worthless. (This is by design, of course.)
I believe Bitcoin’s worth stems from being wealth that is out of any outsider’s (especially the govt’s) reach. Of course this would be a laughable thing to say if a single Bitcoin was still only a few months old and worth less than a dollar. Anyone in their right mind would scream out: "But it might become worthless any moment now!"
But the longer Bitcoins stays around and keeps some value, the more trust it inspires. Ordinary people don’t care about speculation; but they do care about inflation. E.g. my mother inherited a nice amount of money from her father recently. She is not very good with money, but she realized that by keeping it in the bank she’s actually losing money, because interest rates are lower than inflation. Yet investing into stocks is way too complicated for her. (And letting the bank invest it for her, she’d obviously get screwed over as well.) Aside from that, since she’s living off that money now, it has to remain liquid. She cannot do a real long-term investment.
Now currently I wouldn’t advise her to buy Bitcoin (though lots of Veeky Forumstards would I guess), because who knows. But imagine 15 years down the line Bitcoin is still around and has actually continued, more or less, to climb ever higher (maybe a bit less exponential with time) and withstand all attempts of corporate takeover (be it blockstream or bitmain or I don’t care who).
Suddenly it becomes kind of a no-brainer for people like my mother to put their inherited money into Bitcoin. This is not speculation. This is real value: Escaping inflation.

if bitcoin makes gold redundant it's literally the philosophers stone, i think that's a fine measure of success

the only reason fiat loses purchasing power is because the money supply is controlled

can you imagine the stability of bitcoin as a world currency when it is used in all transactions from children's pocket money to international oil deals, it would be impossible to speculate on

Gold has uses beyond money, it will never become redundant, hence the term "gold standard". Same goes for silver and copper as well.

Bitcoin has uses beyond money, it will never become redundant, hence the term "Bitcoin". Same goes for Ethereum and Monero as well.

the reason gold developed independently across all cultures as money has nothing to do with the industrial utility of it. The one and only reason gold is money is because its properties do not change with time, this means all other things degrade relative to gold making gold the datum of value.

of course gold would still have value for its industrial uses but most of the demand for gold is from its use as money which if bitcoin made redundant you would for the first time in history loose purchasing power by investing in gold

No, if Core changes PoW their forked Shitcoin will be worthless.

Thats a good way to look at things. ;)

Gold is almost pointless. It is one of the shittiest metals in existence. Also, don't loop copper with gold and silver. Copper follows very different economics than previous metals

based on this heavily out of context post
Tyranny
twitter.com/morcosa/status/927517228358094849
>We decide what BTC is, not the market.

im gonna go ahead and label this what it is. S2X shill thread.

>This is not speculation.
This is what we used to call "Saving" before people like Krugman made it essentially immoral and practically illegal

call me a shill ye, everyone is welcome to create the next thread dw.

S2X is a protocol upgrade (making the block size double what it is currently)

The only people opposing this are the ones who benefit from small blocks and high fees (read: blockstream/core)

When a team is losing, they get scared. They know S2X has a majority of hashrate signalling right now (Yes people can falsely signal, but still)

I firmly believe a month from now S2X will be the most accumulated difficulty chain. I doubt S1X will exist at all

>can you imagine the stability of bitcoin as a world currency when it is used in all transactions from children's pocket money to international oil deals, it would be impossible to speculate on
I appreciate this vision; I still believe that running everyday transactions through other crypto coins, that are more suited for that (e.g. XRP/STR), is acceptable too. Quick payments and extremely decentralized store of value don’t have to be unified into one single coin.

Exactly.

>multicoin world
I think this too. Quick payments aligns nicely with national altcoins in particular because taxing such exchanges becomes far, far simpler - and puts the burden of exemptions on the citizen instead.

However not all payments need to be quick, it's okay that some are (relatively) slow as long as they are more secure - and that's the niche I believe Bitcoin fills. Were Bitcoin to chase quick payments it would be ceding good territory for, ultimately, bad.

Exactly. Why normal users would be opposed to 2x is impossible to understand.

Holy fuck you people are retarded. Both Segwit1x & Segwit2x are kike takeover attempts, except 2x doesn't even have a dev team.

Bitcoin Cash is the only bitcoin, it hasn't been corrupted by segwit, has extremely low fees and fast confirmations ~10 minutes (you will always be included in the next block)

Bitcoin Cash is decentralized as well with 6 separate dev teams. Obviously it will always be cheaper than segwit coins because it doesn't have some kike controlled company trying to milk money out of it (and then the miner's fees on top).

Bump

Im friend's with Luke-Jr's brother.

Prove it faggot.

You conveniently left out the block only contained 833 transactions you fucking kike shill. Fuck you and your fucking disgusting ilk.

How do I prove that? Him and I were talking yesterday between class, I told him I liquidated my BTC position for a healthy profit and we discussed the upcoming fork.

Does he also believe the Earth is flat?

I dont know, his brother is a PhD student

A simple 1mb fork increase so people can keep going on their merry way transacting in Bitcoin = kikery

Keeping the network hostage with small blocks, forcing everyone to use off-chain lighting network at fees which Blockstream will collect, yeah that's not Kikery at all!

2x doesn't have a dev team, as soon as it is shat into the world it becomes obsolete, the core team will just take over the github and kill it.

Good, let new blood step up to the plate, that is the point of a decentralized currency.

>Gold is one of the shittiest metals in existence
¿Wut?

Love this post

idk whether to buy this dip or wait for the fork

same

How does one signal support for Segwit2X?

According to coin.dance/blocks
it says like 82% of miners are supporting Segwit2X

The recent mooning has nothing to do with the fork so if you're expecting a post fork dip, it's not going to happen unless there's a total shit show.. if anything mooning will increase post fork as we can leave B2X uncertainty behind

yeah im expecting it to dip maybe the tiniest bit, but im stumped since the normie hype train is in full motion now

>Core has gotten us to where we are today.
>EG. Decentralization
were you dropped as a baby?

either way I'm all in on ETH, so I'm very happy to see bitcoin is imploding.

But that won't be viable if transaction volume continues to rise and block size stagnates. And since transactions will always need to be made to the chain in the end, refusing to raise it at all and even threatening to reduce it is just obstruction to promote their shitty alternative.

Core could've avoided all this by not being a bunch of fucking assholes.

>inb4 another ETH bailout on the horizon...

there's nothing wrong with eth, just pajeet parity wallet coders

Something should give soon, if Moore's law will remain to be true. Reaching the limit of transistor grouping together because of heat dissipation. Graphene will be amazing, then eventually quantum, hopefully.