Close your eyes and click on another post. It always helps for me.
On the serious note, that's an issue that will have to be solved with time. As a temporary solution, the interfaces could more carefully select what posts they display and how they display them. The information would remain available on the chain for anyone to access.
Not using segwit is impractical. If Lightning will be practical to avoid, that's what we don't know. They could make it that way, but we shouldn't need to trust that they will.
Using nonsegwit address are the reality at the moment unfortunately and compared to a bank transfer I still paid a lower fee and got a faster conformation time obviously for transferring value in the crypto space that is an eternity and expensive but until the exchanges upgrade we are stuck
That's not my point, although I will concur that segwit adoption has been slow. There have been good reasons for this however and maybe this can change soon. Hope it catches on fast, or that Bitcoin Cash does before/after that.
I listen to a lot of Jimmy's stuff on the World Crypto Network. I recall that there were multiple second level applications that were in the works. I will dig deeper into the timeline for implementation. There was a presentation somewhere that highlighted the impact secondary layer features to the overall network. I will post the key points if I'm able to find it.
Listen to his youtube stuff.. the new one is interesting where tone vays goes to say that bank controls are fine in bitcoin.. gota make a post about this..
Not sure if that's accurate anymore considering now they've at least published some demo stuff as opposed to before, but even if Lightning gets relesed and "works" in their own eyes, common use could certainly still be a few years down the road. (which by itself of course is not the main problem with Core anyways)
Not so sure about that myself unless you have evidence. But he's less obviously hostile than some at least.
He's also a writer at Coindesk on the issue so he needs to at least keep some objectivity, although I would question to what degree he has really been successful in that regard in his journalism.
Jimmy Song is more concerned of the technology than politics to be honest. But they are so biased towards the old blockchain 1.0 that they don't really care or just turn a blind eye to the community. With all these forks coming from everywhere, you gota think there has to be something wrong. It makes me think that even if it's really true and I think it is, that the bank has taken over, Jimmy will still be carrying the Bitcoin Core flag. Tone Vays don't care, as long as his Bitcoin is still there.
Thing is if they were really concerned with the old Bitcoin, they would be more concerned with the main chain. Which I'm not so sure that Jimmy is. Still, the more that can discuss without trolling, outright lying and smears the better.
Side note. Banks (any third parties, even sidechains or second layer applications) taking over is a risk that would be lessened by everyone running a single full, mining, node themselves. But the thing is this can't be done reliably so far. There's no way to check for identity without introducing gatekeepers and compromising privacy. Hence Satoshis choice to let miners specialize and have their long term incentives align by becoming invested in the system is still the best. (If a takeover happens, or if the developers simply don't make the right choices, a fork is of coruse always possible)
Unless they give cheap and widespread access to the main chain again so that a large number of small transactions can take place there, they have not even come close to solving the issue unfortunately.
This is about more than "merely" bringing down the fees at some point, even if that's a huge part of what makes Bitcoin Cash Bitcoin as per Satoshis writings, including the whitepaper. The debate has been censored on social media platforms and that's why the younger generation BTC speculators don't understand what the disagreement is about. This is about preserving the Bitcoin ("the blockchain") design (which includes on chain scaling through increased block size) in its complete and fundamental structure.
BTC won't solve the problem. Segwit breaks security and the legal use case and Lightning is not peer to peer.
True, Bitshares and Steem are the only ones with all the checks. None of these coins can scale
Haha and Bernie Sanders and Haejin don’t exist.
Close your eyes and click on another post. It always helps for me.
On the serious note, that's an issue that will have to be solved with time. As a temporary solution, the interfaces could more carefully select what posts they display and how they display them. The information would remain available on the chain for anyone to access.
don't have to use segwit or lighting addresses if you don't want IMO
Not using segwit is impractical. If Lightning will be practical to avoid, that's what we don't know. They could make it that way, but we shouldn't need to trust that they will.
Using nonsegwit address are the reality at the moment unfortunately and compared to a bank transfer I still paid a lower fee and got a faster conformation time obviously for transferring value in the crypto space that is an eternity and expensive but until the exchanges upgrade we are stuck
That's not my point, although I will concur that segwit adoption has been slow. There have been good reasons for this however and maybe this can change soon. Hope it catches on fast, or that Bitcoin Cash does before/after that.
Roger ver, that you?
Good, now we know you're a troll.
Jimmy Song himself said it will be multi years for lightning to be implemented.
I listen to a lot of Jimmy's stuff on the World Crypto Network. I recall that there were multiple second level applications that were in the works. I will dig deeper into the timeline for implementation. There was a presentation somewhere that highlighted the impact secondary layer features to the overall network. I will post the key points if I'm able to find it.
Listen to his youtube stuff.. the new one is interesting where tone vays goes to say that bank controls are fine in bitcoin.. gota make a post about this..
When was this? Because it's already been more than 3 years. Not quite sure anymore when they first started working on it.
At 34:47 Jimmy Song answers when will lightning be implemented... This was last week...
Good catch. I missed that one.
Not sure if that's accurate anymore considering now they've at least published some demo stuff as opposed to before, but even if Lightning gets relesed and "works" in their own eyes, common use could certainly still be a few years down the road. (which by itself of course is not the main problem with Core anyways)
too right
This is why bcash is such a loser. You bcash bitches just spread fud and lies and quote people who don’t know jack shit.
Please do your research. Look up Jimmy Song, he is a Bitcoin dev. He is also pro Bitcoin.
Not so sure about that myself unless you have evidence. But he's less obviously hostile than some at least.
He's also a writer at Coindesk on the issue so he needs to at least keep some objectivity, although I would question to what degree he has really been successful in that regard in his journalism.
Jimmy Song is more concerned of the technology than politics to be honest. But they are so biased towards the old blockchain 1.0 that they don't really care or just turn a blind eye to the community. With all these forks coming from everywhere, you gota think there has to be something wrong. It makes me think that even if it's really true and I think it is, that the bank has taken over, Jimmy will still be carrying the Bitcoin Core flag. Tone Vays don't care, as long as his Bitcoin is still there.
Thing is if they were really concerned with the old Bitcoin, they would be more concerned with the main chain. Which I'm not so sure that Jimmy is. Still, the more that can discuss without trolling, outright lying and smears the better.
Side note. Banks (any third parties, even sidechains or second layer applications) taking over is a risk that would be lessened by everyone running a single full, mining, node themselves. But the thing is this can't be done reliably so far. There's no way to check for identity without introducing gatekeepers and compromising privacy. Hence Satoshis choice to let miners specialize and have their long term incentives align by becoming invested in the system is still the best. (If a takeover happens, or if the developers simply don't make the right choices, a fork is of coruse always possible)
Unless they give cheap and widespread access to the main chain again so that a large number of small transactions can take place there, they have not even come close to solving the issue unfortunately.
This is about more than "merely" bringing down the fees at some point, even if that's a huge part of what makes Bitcoin Cash Bitcoin as per Satoshis writings, including the whitepaper. The debate has been censored on social media platforms and that's why the younger generation BTC speculators don't understand what the disagreement is about. This is about preserving the Bitcoin ("the blockchain") design (which includes on chain scaling through increased block size) in its complete and fundamental structure.
Got it. Thanks for the response.