Quote from: doc12 on October 23, 2016, 11:31:51 AM

Quote from: commander11 on October 22, 2016, 10:04:54 PM

Die Miner werden entscheiden in Ihrem besten Interesse da kann Core soviel schreiben wie sie wollen.

Wir wissen sowieso nicht wer alles auf die Payroll von Blockstream steht deswegen werde ich mit dir hier nicht diskutieren da Theymos der inhaber von Bitcointalk ist und ich weiss das hier keine anderen Meiungen gewünscht sind.

Aber es wird nichts bringen die Miner wissen schon was das beste ist und das ist definitiv kein Segwit als Scaling lösung.

und Unbekannter ist guter joke gavin Andreesen supportet biggerblock genauso wie 90 % aller early adopter ausser natürlich die Blockstream Core Devs.

Das ist meine Meinung.

Ist das jetzt schlecht das ich meine eigenen Meinung habe ??

Ne deine Meinung darfst du schon haben, aber ich habe das Gefühl du hast so deine Schwierigkeiten damit die Meinung der Anderen zu akzeptieren (~90% der community).
Außerdem lieferst du keine fundierten Argumente für deine Behauptungen, sondern nur irgendwelche Argumente ala "Wer zu erst da war, hat ja wohl recht" oder "Grofatz von Bla hat auch gesagt" oder "VT deiner Wahl bitte einsetzten" .

Überzeuge uns doch bitte technisch argumentativ warum Segwit eine schlechte Lösung ist ? Und inwiefern die Vergrößerung der Blockgröße eine zukunftsfähige Skalingmethode ist?

Achja eure schöne kleine Party ist langsam vorbei: https://coin.dance/blocks/unlimitedhistorical

Segregated Witness baut alles komplett um und es gibt bessere und einfache lösungen um TM zu fixxen.
LEse einfach bei R BTC mal ein paar LN Discuss threads

Adding 500 lines of code for 70% capacity increase is worrisome.

SW puts emphasis on "smart contracting", not "Money". also siphons fees to centralized hubs. why hurt miners? they need fees.

The 75% witness data discount makes it possible to construct attack blocks of 4mb in size, while legit blocks can only be 1.7mb. This makes it harder to raise the limit later as this effect is multiplicative.

here are several toy/demo implementatuons, but none is anywhere near to being usable for real. There is no known effective solution to the problem of finding a multi-hop payment route in a distributed network. The only LN layout that is technically viable is a single central hub with one payment channel to/from each user. But even that is economically inviable, and the problems only get worse as the layout becomes decentralized.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/58vgu9/which_explanation_of_lightning_network_do_you/

Another hurdle, that none of these methods can address, is that nodes can go offline at any time, or may cease to exist -- even if the payment channel is still there in the blockchain. Or they may refuse to forward a payment, for any reason. But executing a multi-hop LN payment requires real-time interaction and cooperation of all nodes in the path. Thus, a path that has sufficien clearances may still fail to work.

ot only do we not know how many transactions the LN might provide, the LN promoters haven't even come up with a credible model that might predict what these number are. As if this is bad enough, they don't even seem to understand the importance of doing this. (The reason is that technical approaches to network performance can only be evaluated in the context of network configuration and user traffic load.)

o we aren't allowed to speak of a bitcoin hard fork on rbitcoin (something other currencies do quite often, and something that was agreed upon in bitcoin HongKong agreement)
But we ARE allowed to speak of Lightning Network (something that is currently not running, and arguably has nothing to do with bitcoin today)
AND we aren't allowed to speak of Lightning Network in a negative Light!
AND we aren't allowed to use Sacrcasm
I need a spreadsheet to figure out what we are allowed to post on rbitcoin. Reddit, censorship on the internet. Bitcoin, where any topic has the potential to be censored by 70million dollars of VC money and a company called BLockstream with undefined intentions.

it is a fools argument to alter a protocol that WORKS TODAY for a separate project using a different programming language on a concept that is UNPROVEN. We don't even have a buggy lightning code to play with that proves any of this can work. Bitcoin is interesting enough, throw out this foolish concept. Or work on it ON YOUR OWN TIME.

old on, october 7 was THE FIRST lightning transaction on Test net. One transaction? We are looking for 100 tx per second not 1 transaction per year.
Seriously, report back when this thing works. Better get it working on a functioning alt coin, that would be better. Testnet coins are worth zero dollars, a good test, but it should be tested on an altcoin in additon.

Das sind nur paar comments aus einem von sehr vielen Thread von usern die Skeptisch gegen dieses 500 lines neuen Code sind was
Bitcoin total umbauen wird.