How is Segwit or Lightning Network not a complete violation of protocol and moving from trustless peer to peer to...

Caspar proof of stake.

Proof of kykery

Better that people are betting their money on being an honest validator in return for transaction fee dividends than a bunch of asic owners who have no stake in the coin itself so long as they can switch over to another coin that is also compliant with their asic.

Same with miner pools so it applies to POW in general.

It enables them to effectively hold a blockchain hostage. They can sell out of the coins way before switching to mining the other coin, so they don't lose anything by abandoning the network to die. The incentives are not as aligned with maintaining the health of the coin as it is with proof of stake.

Proof of work is also a very expensive way to validate transactions.

Proof of work was initially intended to decentralize, but it has been clear that the implications of proof of work has been more centralizing than proof of stake ever will be. That the NYC agreement was even possible illustrates this clearly. It is a failed experiment.

i for one welcome are new Chinese overlords

B2X and BCash trolls are on fire lately.

it is a complete violation and is not even necessary for lighting network, if you believe lightning network will be needed anytime soon

the only reason someone would want segwit was so they could control and then profit off that control of bitcoin

somebody check that full palindrome

How, exactly, does segwit yields "control" of Bitcoin?
I said "exactly".
Because it doesn't

because while segwit is not necessary for lightning network it is necessary for some blockstreams patents

additionally
with “AnyOneCanSpend” addressing, the system is only secure while all participants agree it is secure. Proponents of SegWit assume that once its protocol change is activated, all miners will agree to play nicely, never steal funds, and funds will be locked up safely. But the major flaw in their thinking is that it ignores economic incentives for nefarious miners to do the following after SegWit activates:

1. Form a cartel to take over the network
2. Switch off SegWit and revert back to the current bitcoin protocol
3. Take advantage of the “AnyoneCanSpend” address to instantly steal funds associated with all SegWit transactions in blocks they mined.

Segwit allows for miners to process transactions off chain requiring 3rd party trust. Miners can form cartels to 51% attack the chain and reap all Segwit fees up until that point. Unlike legacy or cash where the security increases over time, Segwit creates an environment in which security decreases over time as Segwit fees compound and the reward becomes greater, incentivising people to cartel and take over.

Someone correct me where I'm wrong, please.

>muh big blocks are the solution
I will make it easy for you summerfags.

This makes no sense from a game theoretical standpoint

Whoever tries to do that would ruin his reputation forever and killed by a BTC-hired hitman from a pissed off billonaire BTC holder.

In addition, anyone can spend meme is just that, a meme.

Alice creates a tx to pay to Bob's pubkeyhash.

Alice: The output script (currently) for P2PKH is dup hash160 EV Cksg

The P2WPKH (segwit version) is 0

In the example, those pubkeyhash fields are the same data, so both of these scripts can be "spent" if you have the private key.

In the first case: Bob's input script: Sig Pubkey

Segwit version: Bob's input script: empty

Bob's witness data: Sig Pubkey

But remember, only one element can be left on the stack after script execution (legacy nodes), and P2WPKH is 2 elements... so legacy nodes will not broadcast Bob's attempt to spend, because his script actually does not execute properly from pre-segwit point-of-view.

Referring to this as "it looks like anyone can spend" is misleading. If you enforce rules that say the stack must contain exactly one nonfalse element, no op codes allowed in the input script, and no segwit, then to you, it would look like NO ONE could spend this output.

However, if a BLOCK contains such a transaction, then legacy nodes will accept it, because a MINER made the decision to break isStandard, and that's a-OK with nodes.

Idk about Segwit yet but LN is clear kikery. Just increase the block size but not because the chinks and kikes said so. (2x)

>2x
>not kikes
Lurk more.

Mods? Can we just get a sticky for these Bitcoin fud scam threads? we are up to one a minute.

ahahahahha its funny that even in crypto you dont have control over your money

Because if you are a complete brainwashed fucktard like 90% of this board you can actually choose NOT to use it. BTC Legacy addresses are still available and working perfectly fine.

every central bank and everyone who makes money off centrally controlled money supply has incentive to cripple bitcoin i such a way. Let alone someone just trying to profit off bitcoin like AXA funded blockstream

off chain scaling will eventually be necessary but there is no technical argument that the time is now. the risk of node centralisation by 8mb bloks requiring 32gb to run a node is outweighed by the guaranteed high fees and slow transaction speeds that a 1mb block creates. 1mb is completely arbitrary and based on no technical reason.
Blocksize should be a balance of mining centralisation, node centralisation, transaction capacity and spam containment. Arguing that maintaining an arbitrary 1mb blocksize that was always intended to be lifted is not rational when moores law is expected to continue to 2021 and we haven't implemented node rewards yet.
Going from a 1mb to 8mb centralises mining by less than 1% because even on a 1mb block it costs over $21,000,000 to contribute 1% of the hashrate.
1mb blocks and all the off chain scaling in the world will not scale bitcoin to a global money
Crippling transaction speed and increasing fees does not increase the store of value properties of bitcoin, even though some of these developers have publicly advocated for $1000 fees
Adoption is the most important variable in the success of bitcoin and it will not be accepted without transaction capabilities at least the scale of visa

You're fucking retarded tho

An 8MB blockchain is like 1.5TB a year and actually it might be less. Hardware and bandwidth costs are negligible. Moore's Law you faggots. The costs of storing the blockchain will never outrun incentive for miners to run nodes.

That said a baked in monetary incentive to merely run a full node would be cool. So more people will run nodes than just miners.

Is the LN mandatory? didnt think so. You probably dont even know how to set your own fee.

it's this simple. Satoshi spoke about node rewards here bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391350.0

Thanks user.
These fees are what has shown me the light. I can't believe some of these fucks are saying high fees will drive adoption (even as store of value). They're clearly on the positive receiving end of fees to claim bs like that.

I think you misread or I wasn't clear. I agree 2x is kiked out. So is core though, don't forget that. In fact there's a good chance they engineered this current situation as a Hegelian scheme. Ultimately the kikes will be well positioned no matter the outcome. They didn't take over the world by being dumb.

it is definitely a scheme
it's a giant collaboration
and as the world unfolds in the following weeks, a lot of posters will see how cryptocurrency is currently driving world events

it's madness, they're not willing to increase blocksize on an argument of node centralization while advocating for higher fees when you could use those higher fees as a node reward sacrificing neither decentralisation ledger immutability scaling bitcoin as the whitepaper outlines

anyone that cannot see the core and blockstream scam deserve to loose their wealth. The best thing about bitcoin is that every time it's attacked like this it redistributes the wealth to the people who know the truth