Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

Right now I'm pro segwit because it is a sensible refactoring and optimization, regardless of whether it includes transaction malleability fix or not and the fact that it does enables lot so potential solutions to real scaling because onchain scaling is not a thing. I don't care who wrote it or who they work.

'onchain scaling is not a thing' ??
im guessing you dont understand bitcoin or LN.. lets read on and see if you have done any research about consensus, about LN, about multisigs. about anything you actually need to know to for you to have an informed opinion.

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

The argument on core's side (and core != Blockstream) are around avoiding a hard fork, which will cause orphan drama in a split consensus, and enabling off-chain scaling, which is essential.

1. the paid core devs ARE blockstream, the unpaid devs are loyal interns hoping to get a blockstream job. you can tell due to their lack of objection to obvious flaws wrote by blockstream paid devs
2. consensus=agreement with small risk of temporary orphans.. NOT a split.... a split is not consensus. learn consensus vs bilateral split. try not to pretend consensus causes splits.
3. core want other implementations to bilateral split(non-core object to this). core just scare the community saying non-core will split to play the victim card. while under same breath begging non-core implementations to bilateral split. but non-core wont split off intentionally.

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

The arguments of BU seem to be that Blockstream will have too much power if segwit activates and the unrealistic dream that getting rid of the block size limit will somehow mean infinite and therefore free transactions for everyone. Also Ver seems convinced that more usage = higher price which ignores velocity and isn't necessarily true. Supply and demand still applies no matter what.

1. the argument of the rational community (much bigger than just BU), so dont attempt to make it just a bu vs blockstream thing..
2. many rational bitcoin community people care more about bitcoins consensus, not the failed banks FIAT value. the failed banks are going to hyper inflate anyway. where a loaf of bread will eventually be $2000. smart people dont care about fiat value, because inflation of fiat is killing fiat all by itself

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

Some things that strike as being lost are
- Blockstream does not need Segwit to implement LN so if it's just an attempt to force them into a dynamic blocksize in the hope of sabotaging their ambitions it won't work and may give a more consumer orientated business or altcoin the opportunity to use the infighting in BTC to take that market.

agreed segwit isnt needed for LN. but segwit is a stepping stone for other features that give blockstream the upper power. EG the way blocks will be formed would require blockstream gate keepers UPSTREAM to filter the data out to the downsteam nodes. (fibre is already becoming the pools gatekeeper)
other stepping stones segwit leads to is sidechains.. yep blockstream want altcoins aswell as the LN commercial permissioned hubs. aswll as being the network gatekeepers (as gmaxwell calls fibre, the 'upstream filter'

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

- Dash, ZCash, the banks, the likes of Microsoft, MPesa and governments aren't sitting still. I'd rather Blockstream made money and used it to invest in the network than Bitcoin fail for being sanctimoniously pure about things that new users won't give a shit about. There's too much expectation of something for nothing.

you do know that letting blockstream succeed is helping them get more involved in hyperledger (the bankers chain)

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

- They also don't have a monopoly on LN. There's already multiple implementations competing as well as other solutions like in the works if they make too much.
- If they become a hub, so what? It takes load of the main chain and lessens the power of miners.

miners should not have power anyway if core actually cared and used consensus. again im thinking you need to learn about real full consensus..
blockstream paid devs decided to avoid real consensus by going soft. the reason. if it works they have slipped in their control stepping stones without nodes consent. if it fails they can play the victim card blaming the miners. yet it was them that decided to give miners power. so shouldnt
blame the miners if the miners disagree

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

So long as I am still in full control of my BTC that is fine by me.

you need to learn about LN and learn multisig. dont be fooled by the word twisting like "birdirectional". and instead realise your funds are put into
a joint account where you need a counter parties permission.. and if that counterparty is a hub.. essentially they are a bank. authorising their many customers payments

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

- Users of transactions who don't care about about store of value or who don't even know their money is going through a blockchain will use the cheapest and fastest, whether it is LN or Litecoin. Somebody is going to make a business acting as trusted third parties to enable consumers. Get over it.

agree with that statement above. but we should not be just letting LN be the end goal of bitcoin.. only let it be a side service for niche users

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

- Onchain can never scale to a remotely large number of transactions. It's a O(n) increase to an O(n^2) problem. Has nobody in the BU/XT/Classic camp ever dealt with internet level scaling and knows what O(n^2) means because I never see it this debate, just politics of Ver vs Blockstream.

1. the community is much wider than your attempt to just plop people into bandcamps.
2. also the fake scare of quadratics is fail because any malicious user who wants to make quadratic tx's still can after segwit activation.. they just avoid using p2wpkh keys.
2. thus segwit doesnt end quadratics. the real solution can be found in other ways. such as limit how many sigops a tx can have.

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

There's a reason a lot of smart software engineers and architects said BItcoin wasn't scalable and why there's been conferences call SCALING BITCOIN every year with some of the smartest people working on it: because just letting the blocksize increase ISN'T SCALABLE. Was that all a waste of time because we could just bump the max size?

lol shouting fear of growth by using fake stories of gigabytes by midnight and billions of users by midnight.. is a failed and flawed argument to intentionally hold up real onchain natural growth, and only done to promote the centralised commercial services as the end goal.
natural growth scaled over decades where natural adoption occures over decades shows it can work. but i bet you will scream the "not overnight" empty argument

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

- Miners want high fees so why do BU people think that they will choose to mine for free. How exactly is BU going to lead to magical times and free transactions for everyone?

pools dont care about fee's. fee's are just a bonus. pools care more about having a functional and spendable network to spend their rewards. without doing anything to the network that would cause pools efforts to get orphaned. fee's are not a concern for decades.

its blockstream that are desperate to push users into commercial hubs so that blockstream can repay their banker investors

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

- The BU code might be the best ever but changing the consensus rules of everyone setting their own parameters is untested and the game theory is a lot harder to get right than the code. A straight 2mb upgrade I'd be happier with. Segwit only alters the rules slightly by tipping the weight of UTXOs

a straight 2mb is just a tmporary gsture that lasts no time at all.. mempools already contain more than double a blocksize of unconfirmed tx's so its not really giving any breathing room. secondly after 2mb. its then another long beg/grovvel and treat devs like kings for more again. instead of letting nodes decide for themselves.
please learn consensus

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

If Bitcoin is to grow at the rate of a network (n^2) it has to have an extra DIMENSION of scaling even if we let the blocksize increase linearly, either vertical through a second layer like LN or vertically through side chains or through some mathematical enabler of Log(N) like MimbleWimble.

if a sidechain (an altcoin) can be vertical.. then obviously tx count vs tx count would allow bitcoin do the same after all an altcoin is limited by the same internet and hardware as bitcoin..
so i see this as a failed argument. if a sidechains computer and internet can cope. then internet and computer is not a problem for bitcoin. (logic!)

Quote from: Cred on February 07, 2017, 10:59:53 PM

Blocking Segwit seems to be just anti-Blockstream paranoia or a ploy by miners to keep the fees up for as long as they can.

Can someone explain the BU solution to all these issues because it seems to be let's just increase the blocksize according to some convoluted rules and see what happens because segwit is bad m'kay?

Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution

lets summarise
1. segwit promises 2.1x tx count - reality only if 100% of people use segwit keys(not gonna happen)
2. segwit promises end quadratics - reality bloated spammers loving quadratics simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
3. segwit promises end malleability - reality double spending scammers simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
4. segwit promises end double spend - reality blockstream added new double spending methods(RBF/CPFP/CLTV+CSV). thus segwit has solved nothing.
5. segwit promises tx fee discount - reality blockstream removed reactive fee and added fee average. pushing the price up to offset future discount.

as for solutions.
the reason you see no alternative solutions in blockstreams moderated github bip list is because the bips have to go through blockstreams CTO's
approval process atleast twice officially. and in reality more like 3-4 times. so lack of seeing anything in the bips by non blockstream friendly devs does not mean there are no bips/alternatives. it just means gmaxwell 'takes one look at the computer screen.... and its gone!'

lastly. dealing with your final sentence of:
'Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution '
segwit is not a solution. its a tweak that offers a temporary empty gesture. but leads things into a direction away from bitcoin scaling and only into altcoin and offchain commercial permissioned scaling.

p.s
dont be a sheep script reading and just throwing insults that i must be in bandcamp A,B,C or d.. instead be wise. do some research into the topics and learn
consensus vs bilateral splits
multisig permissioned contracts
sidechains(altcoins)