Quote from: Carlton Banks on February 06, 2017, 06:32:01 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 06, 2017, 06:21:11 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on February 06, 2017, 05:18:38 PM

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

Quite ironic, isn't it?

Great idea: try to start a tribe.... inside a pre-existing tribe, then label the dissenters as invaders. These people are past immoral

Firstly, you can voice whatever opposition you like if you actually have something more than personal attacks to offer. If you think you're capable of that. Play nice and you might find others start to do the same.

Secondly, it's not just you pushing the tribalism mindset, it's the vehemently anti-blockstream crowd too. Both "sides" are as bad as each other. But obviously I must be one of "them", right? Because everyone who disagrees you absolutely has to be a BU fanatic who wants to fork Bitcoin into oblivion. And from the perspective of the anti-blockstream fanatics, anyone who disagrees with them is equally untrustworthy and wants to control Bitcoin. Somehow both sides genuinely believe the other to be evil, when in reality it's just people being belligerent and uncompromising. Both tribes need to stop sniping and start discussing things reasonably. Step one: stop telling people to fork off if you disagree with them.

Quote from: Lauda on February 06, 2017, 06:21:11 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 06, 2017, 05:30:29 PM

It's faster and cheaper for repeated payments to and from the same person, sure, but that's not relevant to every transaction.

If decentralized routing is to be implemented as planned, the part "to the same person" becomes incorrect. All transactions on LN would be cheaper and faster. However, I'm not currently informed on the status of decentralized routing.

Quote from: DooMAD on February 06, 2017, 05:30:29 PM

I also wouldn't mind some clarification regarding which party pays the miner fee when the balance is settled on-chain. I don't see people discussing that in great detail.

Since when is this a LN thread? If we are going in-depth about LN, then we are going far away from the subject. I also do not have an answer for your question, although I could ask for it.

I think it would help assuage concerns if we all had a greater understanding of what it is that's actually being proposed. It seems like people arguing both for and against it can't explain it very well beyond the basic concept. More often than not, the argument is presented that we should simply trust developers to get on with it, but that only flares tensions and results in the two groups sniping at each other with insults again. There's no way I'm locking my funds into a multisig address until I know every conceivable outcome and I expect the same applies to everyone. But if you'd prefer that all the LN stuff go in a new thread, we can do that. This one is swiftly heading beyond redemption anyway, heh.