"gaslighting" new buzzword this month?..
whats next? "conservative".. "ad-hom".. yea certain buzzwords start circulating in a certain group of people, which just shows they only fed off each other in an echo chamber
Will you go far in saying that everything you said had not one single lie or half-truths? This is a "yes or no" question.
yes
check out the usual group you chat to. lauda, achowe, carlton. they love their 'conservative' 'ad-homs' 'compatible' over use.
even doomad had joined in with "conservative" "compatible" repetition. doomad even gets mad if i myself dont use certain buzzwords
it kinda became a strange thing i noticed and picked up on.
much like a certain mindset loves to scream bcash, china, lambo, fomo. you start to see what crowd people circle in by their use of language
as for your 'gas lighting'. seems you have picked up a new word recently. reading your posts for months it wasnt there. then recently its been used multiple times in the last month.. so its something i noticed
keeping the 4mb and removing the witness scale factor would actually allow MORE transactions per block
as for malleability. pfft
its more for a new TX format that is compatible for LN
Why "pfft"? It did not fix malleability?
correct it did not.
you can malleate a transaction now. by using legacy. so it didnt solve malleation for the network.
there are multiple ways to malleate a tx. segwit solved one that was needed to make BTC "compatible" with LN
due to how LN monitors a TX by its TXID but only for segwit transactions
and yes devs want to re introduce things that make malleation possible again for segwit tx formats.
segwits true purpose was not a network solution. it was a make a tx format thats compatible with LN. al other half promises were wishy washy PR stuff to try coaxing people to adopt and wave a flag of devotion
funny part a 2-in-2out tx of legacy vs a 2-in-2out tx of segwit.. legacy uses less actual bytes on a hard drive.
(but shhh dont tell them that. they still think stripping blocks and not validating signatures and not relaying every tx is ok)
This is a stupid question. What is 2-in-2out again?
a transaction that has 2 inputs and 2 outputs
some call it vin vout
some call it sender receiver
some call it spending paying
another funny part. new/re-activated opcodes can re-introduce malleability. but thats for another topic
What OPcodes would that be?
ask your chums. a few know a few dont. and one in particular doesnt like it when im being subtle but give him no input