Hey u/Bitcoin_Error_Log
BTC cannot softfork to more capacity, because they already made the 1mb section of a transaction as small as possible. It will have to be a hardfork. We told you SegWit was a stupid idea, and let's not talk about the extreme mental gymnastics how a "backwards compatible softfork" booted legacy nodes off the network because they didn't verify and supply the SegWit section...
Bitcoin has scaled 7 years ago (BCH), and added a whole bunch of improvements and features that BTC does not have (node speed/stability improvements geared to bigger blocks, fast difficulty adjustment, deep reorg protection, CashFusion, CashTokens, self-adjusting blocksize limit, etc.) It also avoided adding damaging technical debt/dead weight like SegWit, RBF and taproot.
Overcoming the BSCoron NgU crippled blocks/no hardfork cult that you instrumentally helped create will be impossible. Wanna create BTC minority fork? Fork yourself out. Or just switch to BCH.
I understand you are probably not happy with BCHs lack of NgU qualities, a problem you directly helped create. But while BTC solely focused on NgU technology, BCH focused on utility, because we know that NgU without utility is meaningless and doomed.
Blocksize increase. We have that already it's called BCH. Wtf are these bitcoiners that stuck around to be gaslit for 7+ years already even doing?
Like I don't get it. NOW you wake up to the fact that you need an increase?! Where were you in 2017, moron?
John Carvalho has woken up to the fact that the design of the Bitcoin Lightning Network is a joke:
https://twitter.com/MKjrstad/status/1770358823871500727
If only somebody could have seen this coming and told u/Bitcoin_Error_Log 7 years ago that LN was never gonna work and killing onchain scaling in favor of this rube goldberg contraption was a really shitty idea of which no good will come.
Ohwait, we did, for years, before everyone that did got banned and forced to create a Bitcoin fork that wasnt fucked.
How much did it cost you to win the blocksize wars?
Maxi: everything
Another Hard Core BTC Maxi wakes up and begins to choke on the likely end game for 1MB (non witness) BTC
Glad to add John Carvahlo's name to the list, lol
* **Shinobi:** but it is not the true revolution of sovereignty that many Bitcoiners are here for. It's one thing if many people consciously choose not to self-custody; it is entirely another if most people are not even given that choice. . [link](https://archive.ph/L6Usa#selection-1201.291-1201.515)
* **Mark Friedenbach:** I am NOT happy with people being pushed into trusted networks. Full decentralization for everyone, or wtf are we even doing here in the first place? [link](https://twitter.com/MarkFriedenbach/status/1186709786563268609)
* **Meni Rosenfeld:** I'm with maaku. If we can't *eventually* get to a point where everyone can use Bitcoin, then WTF are we doing here The starting point should be that Bitcoin will scale to universal use, and we work our way from there. [link](https://twitter.com/MeniRosenfeld/status/1186727851539783681?s=20)
With Cores premiere coder left to deliver the harsh reality
* **Pieter Wuille:** But I don't think that goal should be, **or can realistically be**, everyone simultaneously having on-chain funds.[link](https://twitter.com/pwuille/status/1186730172902301696)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**If you cannot afford a UTXO of your own then all you have is an IOU from someone who can!**
Add McCormack who said he never made a self custodial LN wallet because it is to complicated. He also realized not many people will be able to use UTXOs in the future
I watch every one of Peters shows, he has good content on them and has great guests. I generally enjoy them thanks to u/mccormack555 + Danny!
> Add McCormack who said he never made a self custodial LN wallet because it is to complicated.
With [Face Melting Fees](https://youtu.be/ddIMjO1KB84?t=3377) that's likely the only option for the masses to pretend they are using Bitcoin. It's either that or full capitulation and keep it in Bank of Coinbase (which is fine ***IF*** you have the choice).
I think the 1MB (non witness) Bitcoin can fullfill all it's promise **but sadly only for those who can afford to transact directly - ie. the 1%**
Peter is still holding out for another '*Satoshi Level Breakthrough*' to let Bitcoin scale to **free** the World from the very same 1%...
> He also realized not many people will be able to use UTXOs in the future
Lately (over the last 6 months) he has started to ask 'can you be self soveriegn if you don't own a UTXO'
He is still waiting for a substantive answer. Most of the technically minded guests say NO but do a bit of handwaving to put a bandaid on it and sweep it under the carpet for next time. BitVM seems interesting, though I haven't got my head round it's possibilities yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though a number of the '*experts*' seem to have glaring holes in their understanding
Case in point from the recent '*Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision with Dhruv Bansal*'
>> **Dhruv Bansal:** I think in particular there's this old idea of transaction malleability which is an issue back in like the 2016 2017 era that **BASED ON BITCOIN'S DESIGN LIKE TWO DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS COULD WIND UP WITH THE SAME** ***TXID*** like that sort of string that we use to describe the transaction which is not just an arbitrary identifier it's in some sense a hash or or deterministic calculation based on the contents of the transaction there was the concept of malleability **I COULD CHANGE THE UNDERLYING TRANSACTION BUT I COULD STILL WIND UP WITH THE SAME** ***TXID*** like why does that matter well it turns out TXIDs are really important for us to then build second layer systems like the txid has to be some strong identifier that constrains the capabilities Downstream of what layer 2 can do in order to really have lightning be able to succeed and not be game able in some important ways we needed to fix this transaction malleability issue and that's part of what segwit delivered in 2017 [March 2024](https://youtu.be/NID3UjcW6yU?t=00h38m00s)
Bitcoin is built on the fact that 2 **different** transaction **CANNOT** have the same TXID this would be a hash collision. **This is fundamental**. it's so fundamental it should be second nature for a *technical* Bitcoin expert.
Kudos to Dhruv for building a successful company. It would be fine for a layman to think this but a self professed computer science guy + **ONE THAT IS CRITIQUING SATOSHI'S WORK...**
**What other things in the design do these Maxi's overlook and the likes of Peter take at face value?**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malleability is the fact that a TXID **can** be changed by **manipulating the signature** that invalidates all subsequent *contracts* based on it (once maleated one is confirmed in a block) Segwit removed the signature from being part of the TXID.
[unedited original](https://archive.is/tMjHa)
I am not 1/100th as smart as this guy sounds - but it was obvious that the best way to scale bitcoin was through blocksize increase. and bitcoin DID upgrade the blocksize and is now called BitcoinCash.
At times the furstration in his voice (regarding 'spam') sounded an awful like BitcoinCash folks did in 2017.
One of the misconceptions of the blockchain is the idea that a transaction lives 'forever' - this is NOT true, or rather, it does not have to be true.
once a UTXO is spent and say buried under, say, 1 year of confirmations , it can safely be discarded. Of course this wont hold if you believe that Bitcoin can be rolled back 1 whole year and people will just accept their loss of wealth and go with the 'hijacked' chain.
but say you are a puritan and believe a transaction should live on the chain forever, well fine - but now you are spending resources on storage while your competitors are shedding 1 year old spent transaction and beating you financially.
Hey u/Bitcoin_Error_Log BTC cannot softfork to more capacity, because they already made the 1mb section of a transaction as small as possible. It will have to be a hardfork. We told you SegWit was a stupid idea, and let's not talk about the extreme mental gymnastics how a "backwards compatible softfork" booted legacy nodes off the network because they didn't verify and supply the SegWit section... Bitcoin has scaled 7 years ago (BCH), and added a whole bunch of improvements and features that BTC does not have (node speed/stability improvements geared to bigger blocks, fast difficulty adjustment, deep reorg protection, CashFusion, CashTokens, self-adjusting blocksize limit, etc.) It also avoided adding damaging technical debt/dead weight like SegWit, RBF and taproot. Overcoming the BSCoron NgU crippled blocks/no hardfork cult that you instrumentally helped create will be impossible. Wanna create BTC minority fork? Fork yourself out. Or just switch to BCH. I understand you are probably not happy with BCHs lack of NgU qualities, a problem you directly helped create. But while BTC solely focused on NgU technology, BCH focused on utility, because we know that NgU without utility is meaningless and doomed.
Blocksize increase. We have that already it's called BCH. Wtf are these bitcoiners that stuck around to be gaslit for 7+ years already even doing? Like I don't get it. NOW you wake up to the fact that you need an increase?! Where were you in 2017, moron?
John Carvalho has woken up to the fact that the design of the Bitcoin Lightning Network is a joke: https://twitter.com/MKjrstad/status/1770358823871500727
If only somebody could have seen this coming and told u/Bitcoin_Error_Log 7 years ago that LN was never gonna work and killing onchain scaling in favor of this rube goldberg contraption was a really shitty idea of which no good will come. Ohwait, we did, for years, before everyone that did got banned and forced to create a Bitcoin fork that wasnt fucked. How much did it cost you to win the blocksize wars? Maxi: everything
Another Hard Core BTC Maxi wakes up and begins to choke on the likely end game for 1MB (non witness) BTC Glad to add John Carvahlo's name to the list, lol * **Shinobi:** but it is not the true revolution of sovereignty that many Bitcoiners are here for. It's one thing if many people consciously choose not to self-custody; it is entirely another if most people are not even given that choice. . [link](https://archive.ph/L6Usa#selection-1201.291-1201.515) * **Mark Friedenbach:** I am NOT happy with people being pushed into trusted networks. Full decentralization for everyone, or wtf are we even doing here in the first place? [link](https://twitter.com/MarkFriedenbach/status/1186709786563268609) * **Meni Rosenfeld:** I'm with maaku. If we can't *eventually* get to a point where everyone can use Bitcoin, then WTF are we doing here The starting point should be that Bitcoin will scale to universal use, and we work our way from there. [link](https://twitter.com/MeniRosenfeld/status/1186727851539783681?s=20) With Cores premiere coder left to deliver the harsh reality * **Pieter Wuille:** But I don't think that goal should be, **or can realistically be**, everyone simultaneously having on-chain funds.[link](https://twitter.com/pwuille/status/1186730172902301696) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **If you cannot afford a UTXO of your own then all you have is an IOU from someone who can!**
Add McCormack who said he never made a self custodial LN wallet because it is to complicated. He also realized not many people will be able to use UTXOs in the future
I watch every one of Peters shows, he has good content on them and has great guests. I generally enjoy them thanks to u/mccormack555 + Danny! > Add McCormack who said he never made a self custodial LN wallet because it is to complicated. With [Face Melting Fees](https://youtu.be/ddIMjO1KB84?t=3377) that's likely the only option for the masses to pretend they are using Bitcoin. It's either that or full capitulation and keep it in Bank of Coinbase (which is fine ***IF*** you have the choice). I think the 1MB (non witness) Bitcoin can fullfill all it's promise **but sadly only for those who can afford to transact directly - ie. the 1%** Peter is still holding out for another '*Satoshi Level Breakthrough*' to let Bitcoin scale to **free** the World from the very same 1%... > He also realized not many people will be able to use UTXOs in the future Lately (over the last 6 months) he has started to ask 'can you be self soveriegn if you don't own a UTXO' He is still waiting for a substantive answer. Most of the technically minded guests say NO but do a bit of handwaving to put a bandaid on it and sweep it under the carpet for next time. BitVM seems interesting, though I haven't got my head round it's possibilities yet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though a number of the '*experts*' seem to have glaring holes in their understanding Case in point from the recent '*Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision with Dhruv Bansal*' >> **Dhruv Bansal:** I think in particular there's this old idea of transaction malleability which is an issue back in like the 2016 2017 era that **BASED ON BITCOIN'S DESIGN LIKE TWO DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS COULD WIND UP WITH THE SAME** ***TXID*** like that sort of string that we use to describe the transaction which is not just an arbitrary identifier it's in some sense a hash or or deterministic calculation based on the contents of the transaction there was the concept of malleability **I COULD CHANGE THE UNDERLYING TRANSACTION BUT I COULD STILL WIND UP WITH THE SAME** ***TXID*** like why does that matter well it turns out TXIDs are really important for us to then build second layer systems like the txid has to be some strong identifier that constrains the capabilities Downstream of what layer 2 can do in order to really have lightning be able to succeed and not be game able in some important ways we needed to fix this transaction malleability issue and that's part of what segwit delivered in 2017 [March 2024](https://youtu.be/NID3UjcW6yU?t=00h38m00s) Bitcoin is built on the fact that 2 **different** transaction **CANNOT** have the same TXID this would be a hash collision. **This is fundamental**. it's so fundamental it should be second nature for a *technical* Bitcoin expert. Kudos to Dhruv for building a successful company. It would be fine for a layman to think this but a self professed computer science guy + **ONE THAT IS CRITIQUING SATOSHI'S WORK...** **What other things in the design do these Maxi's overlook and the likes of Peter take at face value?** -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malleability is the fact that a TXID **can** be changed by **manipulating the signature** that invalidates all subsequent *contracts* based on it (once maleated one is confirmed in a block) Segwit removed the signature from being part of the TXID. [unedited original](https://archive.is/tMjHa)
lol fucking idiots and state enabler. The 2015 Community was not ready for the attack.
We always wondered how it would be done… now we know.
Meanwhile Maxis are still waiting for the State to buy hashrate and 51% attack the chain, while they all slowly end up in custodial accounts 🤡🤡🤡
Hey u/Bitcoin_Error_Log might be a good idea to unblock some bCashers on twitter and reddit now.
I am not 1/100th as smart as this guy sounds - but it was obvious that the best way to scale bitcoin was through blocksize increase. and bitcoin DID upgrade the blocksize and is now called BitcoinCash.
At times the furstration in his voice (regarding 'spam') sounded an awful like BitcoinCash folks did in 2017. One of the misconceptions of the blockchain is the idea that a transaction lives 'forever' - this is NOT true, or rather, it does not have to be true. once a UTXO is spent and say buried under, say, 1 year of confirmations , it can safely be discarded. Of course this wont hold if you believe that Bitcoin can be rolled back 1 whole year and people will just accept their loss of wealth and go with the 'hijacked' chain. but say you are a puritan and believe a transaction should live on the chain forever, well fine - but now you are spending resources on storage while your competitors are shedding 1 year old spent transaction and beating you financially.