Quote from: dinofelis on July 23, 2017, 04:16:53 AM

==> and this is where Greg's 2 layer model doesn't make any sense: the waste tax is going to be paid by all transactions. Those on layer 1 and those on layer 2. And in order for this tax to be sufficiently high, these transactions have to be sufficiently scarce. If those on layer 2 are too cheap, then everybody will run to layer 2, and layer 1 will be left without "market pressure" and hence without fees.

It doesn't matter what mechanism you use to build layer 2 on top of layer 1. In the end, transactions, whether they are on layer 2 or on layer 1, have to become scarce enough that people will be willing to pay fees to get them.

Most probably, Greg realized this. 1 layer or 2 layers, it doesn't matter. The problems are the same. In the end, transactions need to pay for the waste in proof of work, which is the ultimate security of the bitcoin system (and THAT is the other fundamental flaw in bitcoin). And you need scarcity of these transactions to establish a fee market, whether that market is essentially on layer 1 or layer 2 doesn't matter. If transactions are too fluid and cheap, the system will crumble in any case. So you CANNOT allow cheap and fluid transactions, even if they are only cheap and fluid on layer 2. Because they would crash the market on layer 1

That's right, in the end you can't cheat math and physics.

Layer 2 in the end still depends on Layer 1.

Greg is pretending that by splitting your car's fuel tank in two, it'll somehow give you 100 times the fuel in the future.

The flaw in Greg's logic becomes glaringly obvious when you simply extend it a few times, Greg is basically saying if you build Layer 3 on top of Layer 2, then build Layer 4 on top of Layer 3, etc, you can end up processing all transactions on the planet with Raspberry Pi on Layer 1.

Not going to happen, the transactions data still have to be stored somewhere, someone still have to verify it, and then we're back to square one: 1. Who can we trust, 2. Why would we trust them, and 3. Why would those people want to verify transactions for us.

The flaw is so obvious, yet they're pushing it like mad, and then you have this bankers funded corp kicking away all the Bitcoin senior devs who noticed the flaw instantly and spoke against it. This whole SegWit bullshit just stinks like a classic See Eye Aye op to poison Bitcoin.

SegWit share the same logic of a ponzi scheme, it'll never survive any fair competition and is doomed to fail, that's why the miners don't give a shit about SegWit, the problem has always been the block size limit.

If there is one fatal flaw in Bitcoin, it'd be the 10 minutes confirmation time, most people have very short attention span and they just don't have that kind of patient, if Bitcoin is to dominate the world it needs to confirm transactions within 1 minute. Bitcoin would be over 10 times more popular if it was designed around a 30-60 sec confirmation time frame.

The 10 minutes window gave excuses to idiots like Adam and Greg to sell nonsense, and that's where we are today.

Troll Buster

Posts

Merits