nadaviv

9 ms·

31.
by nadaviv 8y ago
Ugh. These silly conspiracy theories don't hold up to reality. An overwhelming majority of the technical development community, wider community and industry was and still is supportive of Bitcoin's scaling roadmap. Trying to attri
32.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Source code: https://github.com/ElementsProject/filebazaar Demo gif: https://twitter.com/shesek/status/976967775309762561
33.
FileBazaar Joins the Lightning Charge Lapps(blockstream.com)
1 points by nadaviv 9y ago|1 comments
34.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The capacity was increased (more than doubled). Now its a matter of utilizing this new capacity by upgrading to SegWit-supporting wallets. Note that upgrading your own wallet to SegWit immediately saves you about 50% on mining fees, regar
35.
by nadaviv 9y ago
> The core developers (employed by Blockstream) There are hundreds of Core developers; only about 6 of them are related to Blockstream. Your conspiracy theory does not hold up to reality. > have intentionally kept the block size at 1M
36.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The messages the post points out to are not duplicates, though. They have a very similar meaning, but uses entirely different wording so that they won't appear duplicates. In other words, someone went through the trouble of trying to c
37.
by nadaviv 9y ago
We've already got a 2x block-size/capacity increase in the form of SegWit. > increase the block size, but unfortunately Bitcoin Core developers refuse to do it This is simply untrue.
38.
by nadaviv 9y ago
> If the transaction doesn't get its first confirmation before then, it expires I don't think that's true. To the best of my knowledge, they lock-in the rate if the transaction appears on the network within the 15 minutes
39.
by nadaviv 9y ago
1) The 1.7 figure is outdated, the latest one from a research by BitFury in November 2016 is 2.1MB [0]. It's probably somewhat higher now. Yes, it does require wallets to upgrade - but most of them (and all of the major ones) already h
40.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The lack of support among the technical bitcoin community is very glaring: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support#Developers And very few companies signed that New York agreement. Most of the prominent exchanges and
41.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Lite clients (also called SPV clients) don't fully validate the network rules, but instead follow whatever the miners say blindly. That's unlike a full node, which fully validates every block and transaction on the bitcoin network
42.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The title is misleading. This is not an "upgrade", its a new altcoin that's being pushed forward without wide community consensus, just like BCash. Recommended read: https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-go
43.
by nadaviv 9y ago
It isn't supported by any of the prominent developers that participate in Bitcoin's open, consensus-driven, transparent development process.
44.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The censorship claims are pure nonsense being blown out of proportion. r/bitcoin engages in standard moderation, not different from what I would expect to see in any other subreddit. Their job is more difficult than normal, though, due
45.
by nadaviv 9y ago
> I can attest at least that my own entry is accurately represented and I have not been in contact with any other developer who has expressed that they have not been able to add their own entry or that luke-jr or Theymos have otherwise m
46.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Agreed. The title is very misleading.
47.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The opposition to 2x is not led by Blockstream. Nearly every prominent bitcoin developer objects it strongly[0], not just the few that are Blockstream-related. My own company, Bitrated[1], objects it strongly as well[2]. Also, many of the
48.
by nadaviv 9y ago
All of these companies already supported segwit before that. This whole show was for pleasing Bitmain, who were blocking segwit for nearly a year. The companies couldn't care less about doing an hardfork to double the capacity again af
49.
by nadaviv 9y ago
> that's really what matters Bitcoin would be quite useless if this were the case! If the miners were the ones deciding the system's rules, why shouldn't they increase the inflation rate and pay themselves more? The entire
50.
by nadaviv 9y ago
> I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have restricted the Bitcoin network for too long. Restricted it how?
51.
by nadaviv 9y ago
> Segwit has locked in, which while being a "soft fork", already breaks compatibility with the original "Bitcoin". How so? The very definition of a softfork is that its backwards- and forwards- compatible. Segwit is a
52.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Bitcoin Cash had no chance to take over the Bitcoin brand. It was a move played out alone by Bitmain with no industry support. Segwit2x, OTOH, does have a chance the take over the Bitcoin brand (though not a very good one, IMO). This makes
53.
by nadaviv 9y ago
There's a common misconception that Blockstream showed up and started hiring bitcoin developers. That is not the case: Blockstream was founded by developers that contributed to bitcoin for many years before starting a company together.
54.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The sentiment in the global technical bitcoin community is definitely against segwit2x, very strongly so. There may be some very few outliers, but the big picture is quite clear. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_s
55.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Lightning is 5 different working codebases, developed by different groups of developers in different languages under the same protocol specification [0]. [0] https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
56.
by nadaviv 9y ago
It'll eventually (around 3-4 days at most) be evicted from the mempool of enough network nodes so that you'll be able to send a conflicting transaction (spending the same inputs) and get it mined instead.
57.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Not all transactions has to be on the main chain. Scaling will happen on top and to the sides of bitcoin, using sidechains, extension chains, off-chain payment solutions like Lighting and TumbleBit, and new solutions that we haven't th
58.
by nadaviv 9y ago
The amount you're sending is irrelevant, bitcoin charges you by the size of your transaction in bytes (that is, by the number and complexity of inputs/outputs your transaction has).
59.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Also, one could use the satellite data as an additional source of data, just as-if its another peer on the p2p network. In this case, this would strictly improve your security and protect against partitioning attacks with no downsides at al
60.
by nadaviv 9y ago
Broadcasting transactions is easy and trustless: you can give it to anyone who has an internet connection (over radio, SMS, in-person, physical mail, pigeons...) and the worse they can do is not broadcast the transaction. If you send the tr

More ›