Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Looking forward to some quality Schnorr FUD from Jbear and crew.
I don't know why you'd think that. I don't believe I have previously espoused an opinion on Schnorr sigs.
You basically said Schnorr signatures would do nothing to alleviate the scaling issue. That would qualify as an opinion.
Hmm. I guess you know more about my past postings than do I. Link?
Schnorr can obviously reduce the size of txs that have multiple elements. I wouldn't say that is 'nothing'. If this be shown to be a reversal of a previously held opinion, then so be it.
Of course, my final opinion would be driven by an analysis of not merely the benefits of Schnorr, but also its costs.
edit: Oh - I see you've added the link. Thank you. I shall quote:
Quote
Currently it would take over 30 years to send each person on earth a single Bitcoin transaction. Think about that.
Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.
Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.
True enough. If you wish to send every person on earth a single Bitcoin tx (e.g., perhaps to open an LN channel), it will take on the order of three decades. And Schnorr indeed does nothing to alleviate that. It is a true statement, and it is not identical to "Schnorr signatures would do nothing to alleviate the scaling issue".
Your assertion is shown to be false.
After re-reading your post I stand corrected on my interpretation and agree you were referring to a very extreme theoretical scenario where all the block space is used exclusively for opening channels for every person on earth.
I am glad to hear you agree that Schnorr signatures could have some impact on scaling improvement depending on circumstances.
Oh Fuck me, Bitserve. You are much more gentlemanly than me or even the member that has such a username....
I understand that you were probably being a bit sarcastic, but think about a lot of these fucking troll nutjobs and bitcoin doomsdayers, they often take a scenario that has less than a 1% chance of occurring, and impliedly place it at much greater odds - and furthermore they presume that the development is kind of in a stasis and the evolution will occur in the coming days without tit and tat developments along the way to pretty much negate their pie in the sky supposed scenario from playing out.
Well, yes, maybe a bit sarcastic but, at the same time, it is *logically true* that my *literal* assertion proved "false" as it was not identical to what he said.
I could have started arguing over the subtleties such as even in that ridiculously extreme theoretical scenario Schnorr sigs would in fact "alleviate" (reduce) the time needed... but then he would have replied that it wouldn't because he already was considering ONLY single input tx's... and so on....
So... what would be the point of arguing when jbreher already conceded that Schnorr signatures do "obviously reduce the size of txs that have multiple elements"?
Sometimes enough is enough