Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since May 15, 2020 (50 days old)
Karma Posts: 1 Comments: -100 Combined: -99
Active in


I guess the truth hurts. 🤷‍♂️

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 14:30:18

Yes, If you transact via the LN.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 14:06:47

>The subject is the total fee income to miners No. Miners care about total block reward, not just the fee revenue proportion. See how you're desperately trying to view Bitcoin in a negative light in comparison to a competitor (that isn't bch, incidentally) >THIS is what ETH has surpassed BTC on. See above. It hasn't surpassed on UX or chain security. Bitcoin facilitates cheaper & faster fees than eth is able to compete with. It's also more profitable to mine. >This just shows that in the long term with adoption that miner income and hence security is a volume game (ie. many users. It isn't showing that. Its miner income is far lower than that of Bitcoin. >security is a volume game (ie. many users Bitcoin has far superior chain security. >Low fees attract more users in the long term), But its fees aren't low. That's how you're suggesting it has high miner revenue without considering the block reward. And the LN facilitates faster and far cheaper transactions than eth is able to compete with. >BTC has failed so utterly on that front. No. See above >This is basic business really. Then how come you utterly fail to understand?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 08:57:19

>We're not against the fee revenue being high... We're against transaction fees for individual transactions being high. What you're saying doesn't make sense That's what I said. When individual transaction, median fees were at the same level with Bitcoin, bch proponents mocked it. Free pass for ethereum though. >The bitinfocharts stats disagree They disagree with the cost and speed of a LN transaction? >and the size of the blockchain is irrelevant to this debate No, its entirely relevant. Its a hidden cost and.its how ethereum is able to provide "cheap" transactions - by pushing that cost onto full nodes. >So it's either not trusting a websites with objective stats, or taking your (biased) word for it. We're talking about transaction fee revenue, and the 4.5 TB size is irrelevant to that. Se above. >Yes, because LN isn't what's being measured Then you're ignoring a huge part of the scaling methodology for Bitcoin. This conversation and any maths based stats are entirely irrelevant. >We're specifically talking about fee revenue on-chain. No, you are, not we. >One could argue the same for Ethereum since they already have L2 solutions too, so your point has no merit. So include them. >and it's doing so by a far bigger margin By pushing extra cost onto full nodes.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 06:25:01

>The metric isn't talking about the fee to send transactions. This metric is derived from fee per transaction × no. of transactions. The transaction fee is noted here. >That amount is higher than what BTC is taking in in fees. This is what I'm talking about. The bch narrative is high fees are bad, except for when a project other than Bitcoin is seeing them. Eth fees are at a level now that bch proponents have mocked when they were seen with the Bitcoin chain. You're also conveniently forgetting ethereums 4.5TB+ blockchain. >Ethereum is still cheaper to transact with than BTC. No, it isn't. It's slower and far more expensive. My last Bitcoin transaction cost me 2 sats and was near instant. Eth cannot compete with that. And it didn't require a 4.5TB+ blockchain to facilitate this. >Median fee for ETH: $0.31 >Median fee for BTC: $0.86 >Average fee for ETH: $0.67 >Average fee for BTC: $1.48 I don't see LN transaction fees listed here. >You can find the mining revenue by multiplying the average transaction fee by the number of transactions occuring. Let's do the math: You're forgetting the block reward. Mining revenue includes the block reward. >Multiply them, and the daily revenue is only ~$490k a day. Bitcoin daily mining revenue is currently just shy of $10M/day. >Edit: *~$680k, which further proves my point. No, see above.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 03:41:07

9,9,10,9.5 (The scoreboards for your mental gymnastics)

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 01:49:18

All of a sudden, TX fees aren't a problem. And the r btc narrative shifts again...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 4, 2020 01:39:19

Using a hardware wallet, just linked it up again.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Electrum on July 3, 2020 17:57:55

Thanks for responding. I actually just solved it with a full uninstall, delete the .Electrum folder then fresh reinstall of the latest version.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Electrum on July 3, 2020 17:52:32

Yeah, I'm not going to respond to all of that. There will undoubtedly be another reply from you that's just as long and I really can't be bothered to go over all of the same tired old talking points again. You don't appear to want to be convinced and my trying will only serve to further solidify your current views - like debating a flat-earther, therefore, I'm not going to waste my time.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 16:43:23

>I mean Nano is first for user experience and payments, but it has its own drawbacks. Its drawbacks being unfair initial distribution, insta mined/printed out of thin air and compares to Bitcoin very poorly in every single other metric. I've never performed a nano transaction but seen one. The UX is pretty much indistinguishable from a Bitcoin LN transaction - were basically limited by internet latency between peers. Nano doesn't utilize PoW though as I said above, it compares poorly to Bitcoin. >Those issues definitely aren't on BCH is all I know, bch has many of the same issues and some different ones. >and BTC is nowhere near any other cryptocurrency when it comes to user experience Bitcoin has, by far, the best wallet infrastructure since it has had much more development directed at it in that area. This is the initial touch point as far as UX goes. Have you ever made a LN transaction? >I'd like to see you justify $55 fees, and 11,453 minute confirmation times. Justified very easily by the free market principle of supply and demand. This occurred 2.5 years ago now and once in 11.5 years. I'd like to see you justify bringing up this event every single conversation when it is obviously no longer relevant. It isn't the norm and you know that. >Security? No. Nano is already immutable in less than a second, and Bitcoin Cash doesn't actually have security issues despite the myths. Realistically, you can't reverse a BCH transaction after 6 confirmations. This requires a whole other separate conversation, one I'm not committing to since I have to wait for 10 minutes before I'm allowed my freedom of speech in this sub. If you think that the "security" of those two altcoins in in any way comparable to that of the Bitcoin network, I can see such a debate would be lost on you. Have a think about why gold has the ability to command such a high market value. In the long term I highly suspect that 1 nano won't even be worth 1 penny & it certainly wont be adopted as a worldwide MoE. >Decentralization? No. Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Nano, Dash, and many other coins have that and also illustrate how bad Bitcoin is in terms of user experience. None of those altcoins have that actually. You can't have a hardfork every 6 months and still call your chain decentralized. You're claiming to be able to achieve 100% user consensus, every 6 months on a particular date. Ridiculous. We know the creators of all of those projects. You can't copy/paste this particular Bitcoin attribute. >Price performance? No. Many other coins have far outperformed BTC including but not limited to Chainlink, Tezos,, and now Cardano is starting to get their own rally. Zoom out. They have only outperformed Bitcoin in the very short term and only when Bitcoin is doing well itself. Some of those projects likely won't even exist in another 8 years. Also, they all crashed harder than Bitcoin during the bear market. You can't conveniently ignore that fact. >Slowly but steadily, coins seem to start being less correlated with the price of BTC as more people are starting to actually realize their value. Cardano and Chainlink are examples of this. After crashing, Cardano is finally getting its rally. 🤷‍♂️ I mean, you can say it. It doesn't really mean anything.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 15:00:45

>On the blockchain? Yes. >Or is it only a valid, signed transaction on the bitcoin blockchain when the settlement happens? They're yours until you sign a transaction with your private key to transfer ownership.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 13:06:46

It's a valid, signed Bitcoin transaction.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 07:21:24

A LN transaction is the exchange of HTLCs between peers. A HTLC is a valid, signed Bitcoin transaction that may be broadcast to the mempool - to an on-chain address at any point, by either peer. The difference between an on chain transaction is that it's broadcast to the mempool immediately where's with the LN, peers hold onto the HTLC, update their balance as they route/receive transactions and broadcast the latest HTLC at a later point in time.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 06:55:43

Oh, the irony with this comment. 🤦‍♂️

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 06:06:03

HTLCs are signed/valid Bitcoin transactions that may be broadcast to Layer 1 as any peer pleases.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 05:44:55

No. With the LN, you're exchanging HTLCs, valid Bitcoin transactions. Actual Bitcoin. This isn't the case with eth. So no, you couldn't say that.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 04:57:03

There are absolutely 0 Bitcoin on the eth chain. They just have tokens that they *call* Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 04:21:27

>What is entirely accurate My prior responses to your comments.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 18:42:47

You can crack them until your fingers fall off. What I've posted is correct, whether you believe/understand it or not.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 17:46:40

This is entirely accurate. I'm not sure what you meant but my comments are accurate.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 17:15:19

This actually is how Segwit works though.. You're joking... Right?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 16:24:34

>If you did, you wouldn't say obviously wrong things like, "the witness data for segwit transactions go into the extension part of a segwit block". 🤦‍♂️ >Where is the "extension part" of the block? Is this a serious question?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 16:14:35

L2 doesn't suffer backlogs. Segwit facilitates L2. The conversation follows quite well.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 16:03:51

>You have a lot to learn when /u/contrarian__ is schooling you on basic SegWit knowledge > I don't know that user. >When you ask questions like this: >Ask yourself, what if legacy nodes receive blocks directly from a miner...? >That's when I know you're clueless. Mining nodes and non-mining nodes send the same format to other nodes. Only difference is mining nodes can occasionally create some blocks when they find that nonce, but the software for mining and non-mining nodes is the same software and version. >I mean go ahead and show me where you can download 2 sets of node software for Bitcoin Core lol. I'm sure you'll give me a link and not some smartass reply. I'll wait. It was a rhetorical question, in response to your prior response.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 15:53:51

>They don't even receive the witness data, since the transactions and blocks they get have a different serialization if they are SegWit. Exactly. >A legacy node wouldn't ever ask for a block with the new serialization rules, so they'll never even see the witness data of SegWit transactions. Miners won't just send them the witness data on their own, and if they did, the old nodes would reject it as invalid. Exactly. >Do you think that the old nodes receive witness data but just don't know what to do with it so they ignore it? Because that's absolutely not how it works. No. >Familiarize yourself with the difference between MSG_BLOCK and MSG_WITNESS_BLOCK. Old nodes would never request the latter, so they won't receive the new serialization format: >if (inv.type == MSG_BLOCK) connman->PushMessage(&pfrom, msgMaker.Make(SERIALIZE_TRANSACTION_NO_WITNESS, NetMsgType::BLOCK, *pblock)); else if (inv.type == MSG_WITNESS_BLOCK) connman->PushMessage(&pfrom, msgMaker.Make(NetMsgType::BLOCK, *pblock)); I already know how Segwit works.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 15:43:52

? L2 has absolutely nothing to do with a dynamic blocksize on L1..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 15:32:03

Segwit activation was optional. Miners chose to activate it voluntarily. I'm not sure where I'm losing you. bch hardforks are mandatory, in comparison.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 15:05:04

>Sorry, it's absolutely true. No, it isn't. >New nodes deliver a customized version of the block to old nodes. This customized version does not include witness data for SegWit transactions. The real block is sent to upgraded nodes. No, old nodes simply do not acknowledge the extension part of the block. Fortunately, witness data doesn't fall within the consensus rules. Ask yourself, what if legacy nodes receive blocks directly from a miner...? "New nodes" don't have the opportunity to make a difference.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:54:25

No. Transactions via the LN were still almost instantaneous. And for on chain transactions, you still got into the next block if you voluntarily joined the free market and paid the required fee to have your transaction included into the next block in accordance with free market demand, at that particular point in time. This is free market capitalism, you appear to be in favour of socialism.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:33:15

No. Miners already voluntarily chose to activate segwit, almost 3 years ago. That's the checkmate.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:23:12

No, I'm responding to you. >The witness data is still 'in' the transaction. Yes. I haven't claimed otherwise. >The transactions are 'in' the blocks. Again, yes, I haven't claimed otherwise. >The witness data is not shunted off to some 'extension' part of the block. False. This illustrates your lack of understanding, regarding segwit. How do you think Bitcoin blocks are able to be bigger than 1MB and be backwards compatible at the same time?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:13:13

You're going by your own definition of a backlog. The issue that you're describing requires a dynamic blocksize (due to natural block-time variance) which neither Bitcoin or bch currently have.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:01:29

>You tell me. Yes. That is true. See BIP9. >If SegWit is voluntary and not mandatory, what options do they have? I see these options for a miner: >Follow SegWit's mandatory rules >Ignore SegWit's mandatory rules and get your blocks orphaned by processing them under previous rules. >Don't process SegWit transactions and leave money on the table making your mining farm less money and therefore less competitive. See BIP9. Segwit activation was optional, not mandatory, despite what you might have been told.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:49:59

False. This is for legacy transactions only. How could non-segwit transactions possibly take advantage of the segwit extension block? This is your problem. You have absolutely no idea how segwit actually works.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:40:00

>14 blocks to clear the mempool right now. Why do you lie? I'm not lying. The mempool clears very regularly. I got a transaction confirmed at 1.2 sat/byte just a couple of hours ago. I can perform a LN transaction instantaneously, right now. >Some poor saps are going to wait 2.5 hours to get confirmed, not 10 minutes. Not if they perform the transaction via the LN or simply pay the required fee to get included into the next block. You're lying, not me.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:30:00

>lets go back and handle one argument at a time, because you're gish gallopping. No, I'm responding to every single comment, quite succinctly. >and yet SegWit is not optional but mandatory once activated. False. You can broadcast a legacy format transaction today. >A miner MUST treat some p2sh transactions under SegWit rules otherwise their block will be orphaned. Is this not true? "A miner" has *voluntarily* opted to support segwit. Is this not true?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:19:15

>lol what a response. I'm sorry that the truth upsets you so. >Freedom of choice is not using SegWit and not gaining on the blocksize increase. You gain from the extra free base block space that isn't occupied by those that voluntarily chose to segregate their witness data. >That explains why Bitcoin blocks have gained 0.1MB-0.5MB in size This is determined by free market demand. >despite the Bitcoin network being backlogged. It isn't backlogged. >A miner who doesn't upgrade their node and treats SegWit transactions as pay to anyone will have their block orphaned and receive no mining reward. >This is 100% true. and your response is: some nodes don't even understand SegWit. >lolwut. /u/beardecake is that you with your poor logic? My response is accurate. Did I need to discern between non-mining full nodes and miners for you? There *are no* miners on the network that didn't upgrade to support segwit.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:09:05

>SegWit is only a blocksize increase if SegWit is used. You don't seem to get that. Yes I do. That's called freedom of choice. You don't seem to appreciate that. I don't want to force people to agree with me, unlike you do. >If a block contains 0% SegWit transactions there is no blocksize increase. See above. Segwit was and still is an optional upgrade.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 12:58:14

>No one's arguing SegWit wasn't a blocksize increase, just a shitty one. An *optional* one. I know you guys aren't a fan of freedom of choice. And other responses to this post are arguing that segwit wasn't a blocksize increase. >On average the Bitcoin blockchain has gained 0.1to 0.5MB in blocksize. In accordance with demand. Every block could potentially be 2.3MB+ if the demand existed. >it's dependant on people using SegWit over legacy transactions, which is a problem not a feature. It's freedom of choice. Freedom isn't a problem in my book. Mandatory updates, are. >This is a non-sequitor. Once SegWit was activated it was a mandatory update. No, it isn't and wasn't. There are nodes on the network that can't even comprehend segwit, transactions that don't utilize it. >A miner who treated SegWit transactions classic pay to anyone legacy transactions would have their block orphaned. Once SegWit updated it was mandatory to treat SegWit transactions under new rules. This is why segwit activation required 95% of miners to voluntarily support and activate it. It was and is, entirely optional. >They must do so in fact. False. There are nodes active into he network that can't comprehend segwit. >A miner who doesn't upgrade their node and treats SegWit transactions as pay to anyone will have their block orphaned and receive no mining reward. Debunked, see above. >Once SegWit was activated there was no freedom of choice. A miner who treated SegWit transactions classic pay to anyone legacy transactions would have their block orphaned. Debunked, see above. >Only users had choice to use or not use SegWit False, miners were not forced to signal acceptance of segwit. It was entirely optional. >And when a user doesn't use SegWit everyone suffers, since it affects Bitcoin's throughput. Freedom of choice. >Should a block contain 100% SegWit transactions it fits more transactions and the blockchain processes faster. Should a block contain 0% SegWit transactions it effectively has no blocksize increase and has less throughput. Freedom of choice.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 12:47:17

>You don't make any sense. You don't appear to understand segwit. >SegWit and legacy transactions take up the same space on disk. Approximately, but the witness data for segwit transactions go into the extension part of a segwit block. This is how segwit blocks are able to be larger than 1MB. Segwit was a blocksize increase. >In the case of SegWit they don't count signatures toward blocksize but it still takes up the same space on disk This is false. See above. You really should try to understand segwit before criticizing it. >Signatures aren't discarded, just not counted towards the disk space. Again, false. See above. They do count towards the total blocksize.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 12:28:16

>Segwit is a dirty hack that is essentially a tumor on btc network. It was a blocksize increase by way of optional extension block. >Its not bitcoin anymore That's doesn't actually mean anything if you just say it. This project obviously requires upgrades as time goes by. Eventually, we're going to have to abandon most, if not all cryptography currently in use to become QC resistant. Had you thought about that? Will that still "be Bitcoin"? >Defending segwit technically just shows your ignorance, best case. People like you don't even appear to know how Segwit actually works, even at a basic level.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 12:08:33

>By giving SegWit transactions an unfair 25% discount despite taking up the same space on disk. They physically aren't capable of even doing this. I told you already, Segwit was a blocksize increase, that's how the discount is achieved. It isn't unfair because it's optional and it takes up extra space and bandwidth to function. >And why do SegWit transactions get a discount despite taking up the same disk space as legacy transactions? They don't take up the same disk space. They take up more. Segwit was a blocksize increase. That's 3 or 4 times I've told you that now. >Because they don't count signatures towards blocksize... despite taking up THE SAME blocksize in terms of diskspace. Yes they do, that's how Bitcoin blocks are able to be larger than 1MB. You don't even know how Segwit works. >Why are you framing a problem as a feature? Mandatory updates by a centralized group are the problem. They aren't a feature of a decentralized protocol. >SegWit requires users to know about SegWit and understand it so the entire Bitcoin blockchain benefits, hence the poor adoption. They require people to upgrade their wallets & fullnode software, should they wish to do so. >BCH blocksize increases puts no burden to understand the technology and just works It just forces changes to the protocol on people with no freedom of choice. It forces the consequences of the vastly increased blocksize onto users too. You don't appear to know how any of this works.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 11:52:21

>Might as well if Bitcoin Core is gaming the system with it's accounting hacks for SegWit. How do you think this group of individuals is gaming the system exactly? >For those that didn't know SegWit transactions and legacy transactions take up the same amount of disk space. Yet for some reason they give SegWit transactions a 25% discount. FYI, Segwit was a blocksize increase **for those that chose to utilize it.** That's how native Segwit transactions save 37.6% over legacy for the average transaction. Thats how the discount is achieved, the exact same way that bch does it, only the bch way was mandatory, not optional. >Despite that incentive, after 5 years Segwit usage finally hit 50% usage Segwit has only been active on main net for just under 3 years, not 5. And you won't get 100% adoption immediately since **it's not mandatory like with bch upgrades.** Freedom of choice is a bitch ain't it..? >while other major exchanges like Binance still don't support it. They support native Segwit withdrawals (& deposits also, obviously), FYI. What does the particular situation of one exchange matter within a decentralized project? >Who would have thought the technical debt brought on by SegWit would need an incentive A standard blocksize increase also includes technical debt. Adequate block propagation/verification is more difficult to achieve for example.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 11:30:40

bch does have owners though. They are the individuals that force your mandatory protocol updates onto you every 6 months.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 16:37:21

You'll find plenty of people looking to connect here;

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/lightningnetwork on July 1, 2020 16:32:48

>Haha that's funny and all It's true. Not sure what's funny about it, I wasn't joking. >but which do you think will be the first to flip BTC? See my original response.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 14:41:19

If by "flip" you mean achieve a higher market cap then this poll is retarded. Eth has a far higher token count and infinite inflation (last I checked) and Tether are technically unlimited too. Both are/were printed out of thin air by a central authority. You're comparing these two things to the world's first truly scarce, finite digital commodity.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 14:29:05

I haven't tried to. What are you talking about?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 11:49:01

>Bitcoin will never cross $12K again 🤦‍♂️

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 11:33:16

You do realize that the entire Bitcoin protocol is still in beta, right?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 11:23:14

>I don't view Satoshi as a deity. You certainly appear to do so from your comments. >This is just a fact which you don't like. See my point about viewing Satoshi as a deity.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 10:48:57

And yet more conspiracy theory nonsense. Grow up.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 10:13:07

It was sarcasm. I'm running a LN node.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 10:00:06

Yes, you can. >First of all, the Bitcoin repository and major social media platforms were taken over by people who had a financial conflict of interest and didn't share the original vision of Bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash. They took over the code repository and subverted the roadmap. Then they inserted themselves as administrators of the two biggest social media outlets and banned and censored anyone who had a view that differed from their non-sequitur plan to rate limit Bitcoin. All conspiracy theory nonsense. When your guy had commit access, you were fine with it. You're just a sore loser. You have your big block imposter "version" of Bitcoin now, you'vehad iit for almost 3 years **and almost nobody wanted, wants or uses it.** Fact. >The Bitcoin community struggled from 2014-2017 (three years) to get this group to scale Bitcoin in any meaningful way. It *is* scaling in a meaningful way though. You just can't comprehend it. >We got SegWit, which was a kluge and a hack that left the blocksize limit at 1MB, but only for non-signature data, which equates to a tiny increase in throughput. This was to make the blocksize increase methodology both optional and backwards compatible - in order to avoid splitting the userbase. You guys with your mandatory hardforks that get dictated to you every 6 months wouldn't understand. >Bitcoin Cash and the original Bitcoin community struggled for three years to get any sort of compromise out of team Blockstream. When it was clear they were being railroaded, they forked off. The overwhelming and vast majority supported segwit. All statistics prove this fact. bch barely has 3000 active daily users and that's after 3 years and millions spent on disinformation, propaganda and advertising. >That's not remotely the same as pretending to support the Blockstream scaling plan There is no central entity within a decentralized system. More conspiracy theory nonsense.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 09:44:19

But bch proponents keep telling me that the Lightning Network won't be ready to do this for another 18 months...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 08:10:22

>Scaling the blocksize with a hardfork is exactly what Satoshi suggested. I suggest you stop viewing Satoshi as a deity. He also made several programmatic mistakes, suggested people *should* run full nodes and compared Bitcoin to a precious metal rather than cash. >Core demonstrated exactly why it was needed. But is *wasn't* needed. bch doesn't even have enough demand to regularly fill 150KB blocks, let alone 32MB. **By raising your blocksize from 8-32MB, you demonstrated exactly why you shouldn't have commit access.**

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 05:01:31

You can apply **literally all** of this to bch and its split from Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 04:49:34

>and he was kicked out from having commit access. And rightly so. He voiced his opinion about becoming a sole dictator over the project. *“That may be what has to happen with the block size, frankly. I may just have to throw my weight around and say, ‘This is the way it’s going to be. And if you don’t like it, find another project.'”* ~Gavin Andresen. If somebody like Back came out with a comment like this, you'd all have a field-day with it. **You would never let it slide**... But it's OK if it comes from somebody on your side, then they're a "victim." With bch, you're all accustomed to having a hard forks forced upon you. This isn't how consensus is achieved with a truly decentralised system - Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 04:22:18

I just can't imagine anybody paying several thousands of usd for 1 bch.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:35:25

>There was a consensus for bigger blocks. Not the required threshold though or it would have activated. It didn't, obviously. There was very clear consensus for segwit though, in accordance with the activation requirements at the time.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 09:36:24

All refuted already. Scroll up.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:04:49

>Yes they are. No they aren't. Again with the stupid comments. >Nothing is wrong with the Ethereum smart contract language. OK, you've gone full retard at this point. I'm done.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:31:30

>BCH has existed since the genesis block No it hasn't, you're just being silly now. >You cant stop them. Thats the beauty of forks and permissionlessness I don't want to, have at it. They aren't Bitcoin though. >You have no right to the name, sorry. Nor do you. Think about it. You can call it whatever you want. It just isn't true. >No, actually they removed a limit preventing bigger blocks (which was always intended to be removed) from the software they were already running. No. I told you what they did already. I'm tired of having to repeat myself with you. >Why only the Berkely DB bug? Why not fix the 500-750k serialized byte limit and remove the explicitly temporary 1mb limit too? Those limits dont define bitcoin, and bitcoin is allowed to hardfork. Deflection. The software would obviously sync to the Bitcoin chain. Not the bch altcoin chain.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:21:31

Exchanges aren't built upon the Bitcoin protocol though. Imagine instructing your contractors to build a house for you on top of a swamp.... Then blaming the contractors when it sinks. That's eth. (the swamp) and the house represents the defi smart contracts.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:03:32

I've responded to & debunked all of this already. Just scroll up, I'm not repeating myself anymore.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:53:08

>They are. No. >No, sorry. Bitcoin forks are Bitcoin No. >As a fun experiment, can you tell me whether the person from 2009 who called Craig a fraud here signed a BTC address or a BCH address? They signed a Bitcoin address. **bch didn't exist at the time that keypair was generated.** bch copy/pasted the Bitcoin utxo set, blockchain and most of the code. As a fun experiment, if you were to compile full node code from 2009, fix the Berkeley DB bug and let it run, would it sync 100% to the Bitcoin chain or the bch chain? There's your answer 👍

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:33:51

[Good luck with that.]( Another day, another Defi hack, another $500k to add to the millions that Eth has already lost for its investors... and nobody seems to bat an eyelid. If this was happening on Bitcoin, you'd all be going wild about it. Eth somehow gets a free pass. I prefer to invest my wealth in something that's actually secure. That's just me though.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:23:50

>No they dont. Yes, they do. Just read them. >I'm not deflecting, Yes, you are. I think you've lost track of this entire discussion. >You didnt provide a link. Scroll up to my first comment in this post. Not sure what you are responding to if you haven't even seen the link I posted.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:13:16

>No, inflation is new tokens that devalue at the expense of people holding the old tokens No. You're trying to suggest that these forks are all just different versions of Bitcoin. They aren't. There is Bitcoin and a multitude of forks that arent Bitcoin. And that's it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:02:46

Not your platform, not your channel.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 21:36:28

>You're talking about miners orphaning the block Arbitrarily censoring *valid transactions* .. the rest of us call that an attack on the network & users, which is what it is. >If you think thats a "51% attack", then BTC got 51% attacked years ago during the value overflow incident: This was a bug, not the miners just deciding to censor transactions just because they can.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 21:22:54

He's absolutely correct though & we see this playing out in front of our eyes today in the west. I'm sorry that the truth hurts you so bad. Better to have people censored rather than engage in debate & learn something, I guess...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 21:03:04

>Your quotes dont prove he was against Segwit2x. Yes, they do. Just read them. >Those quotes are in the context of Bitcoin Core developers having already rejected Segwit2x by that time. Core and the overwhelming majority of users. This is irrelevant & you're deflecting from the conversation again. Ver was very clearly against s2x as proven by the link provided.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 20:52:30

>I mean, you can call it inflation if you want Well it would be inflation if these were legitimately Bitcoin as you're trying to suggest. You're wrong however. >but the number of tokens is irrelevant to the total value You're lacking even a basic understanding of economics and monetary policy then. Why else has the usd lost some 96% of its value since it was created? There is no point responding to the rest, you're not even trying.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 20:41:18

What happens if there isn't?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 12:42:42

I've just provided quotes from an interview that occurred in July 2017 that proves otherwise. He's a charlatan. You've been scammed.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 12:30:24

>and yet its been working fine for almost 3 years and nobody has attacked it False. There was a successful 51% attack on the bch chain a while back involving some valid transactions that were mistakenly sent to segwit addresses.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 11:40:46

>You have to be dumb to think the ratio will not increase from here. It's certainly possible & it certainly better do from your perspective, you're taking a massive risk. However, take a look at the whole BTC/bch chart... it's a car crash in slow motion. Perhaps there will be some small upside in the very short term. My guess it that well see bch break below 0.01 at some point within the next 3 years and never recover from it. Eventually, you be able to get 10,000 bch for 1 Bitcoin, I think.. and in the long term, it will still be overpriced.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 11:26:32

>No I didnt. Yes, you have. >You're just trying to simply things too much to accurately reflect reality. No. We have Bitcoin, then some 70 forks of it, that aren't Bitcoin. That's it. You don't want to admit it because you're loser in this situation. >After a chain has forked, the new tokens are lesser versions of the original whole. You're correct here. No fork of Bitcoin is anywhere near to the real Bitcoin. You can't fork decentralization and the network effect. You can copy/paste the UTXO set, blockchain and most of the code though. >Its like having a whole pizza and then taking a slice out of it. After you take the slice out, do you now have 2 pizzas? pizza inflation? This is retarded. If you add the pieces up, you still get one whole pizza, no inflation. If you add the 21M real Bitcoin plus the 21M fake bch, you get 42M, = inflation. >No. But the slice of pizza is still pizza, and so is the rest of the pizza that you sliced it out of is still pizza too (like BCH and BTC are both bitcoin). debunked above. >But that doesnt mean your pizza is "technically unlimited" because you can keep slicing your pizza. And again, debunked above.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 11:16:00

>SegWit isn't synonymous with SegWit2x How do you have S2x without segwit? >and Roger Ver didn't say anything about opposing SegWit >*I think we'll be mining the same style blocks* [as nchain] and; >*were very, very inclined to follow the same philosophical process and *same technical process* of whatever pool nchain sets up.* None of this involves supporting segwit. **This is anti segwit rhetoric.** >He just said that hes going to discuss with his team about SegWit. See above. We're talking about him being a segwit2x proponent here, which he clearly was not. You've heard the words come from his own mouth.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 06:35:37

No. You've avoided the question. I didn't ask how forks work, I'm talking about Bitcoin. Satoshi set the inflation schedule and the supply limit of 21M. Forks are irrelevant. They're not Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 06:25:40

Listen [here.]( @29:05 - 29:51. You can then come back here and apologize for that accusation. There are plenty of examples of ver criticizing/opposing segwit. Segwit2x was a pathetic tit-for-tat, "we'll give you this if you give us that" agreement between a few individuals and corporations. This isn't how Bitcoin scales.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 17:52:48

About 2 cents if you paid the minimum fee.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 28, 2020 16:37:38

>November upgrade discussion started here: That's *Mandatory* November upgrade. They have already decided that it will & when it will occur. It isn't optional.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 15:40:44

Because you're talking absolute nonsense. Note that.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 13:04:05

Wait. So you've opened up the BTC/bch chart.. and you think it shows bch *appreciating* against Bitcoin...?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 12:54:07

>Refute my arguments. Should be easy if it is nonsense. I can't, just like I can't refute the claims of some religious fanatic. Form what you've already posted, you'll just flat out deny anything I say - there is 0 chance of factual debate, just more nonsense and a complete waste of my time.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 11:58:57

Pure delusion and idol worshipping. I'd love to see the look on your face a short while after the peak of the next bull run..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 11:46:52

>As BCH does not believe in store of value, it does fit their narrative. What is that even supposed to mean? You're talking about it as if it's a single person. Jesus, then I read the rest. Utter nonsense.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 11:36:39

So Bitcoin are technically unlimited? And can be printed out of thin air, at will and by anybody that cares to do it?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 10:59:27

The claims of any individual or corporation are entirely irrelevant within a decentralized network. You should know that. You guys all say the bch is the real Bitcoin. That isn't true either.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 10:39:48

>BTC coin had a possible attack vector No, this occurred within their Liquid sidechain. Bitcoin was unaffected.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 10:23:55

>I however am a seasoned hodler bch hasn't existed long enough for it to even have any seasoned hodlers though... It hasn't gone through a full market cycle either, it just crashed since inception.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 05:22:31

No. What they've written there is entirely accurate. They have absolutely 0 incentive to rewrite history whereas you and your ilk, do. Occam's razor = you are lying, not CMC.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 04:53:40

>Or it will simply fail. No. You've obviously never even tried it. >LN is bullshit. It can't scale, The same tired old talking points from within this sub. You're lying about something you've obviously never even tried to use. >and routing is still not solved. 🤦‍♂️

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 04:43:24

>u/chaintip you can do that all day every day and you will get in the next block . You can do it with Bitcoin via the LN and you don't even have to consider the next block. Your transaction will be faster, cheaper and more private than with bch too.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 28, 2020 03:54:57

Interesting read, just looked up how to activate Shadowsocks on Android, just in case I ever need it. Do you know if Shadowsocks will be integrated into the Android app eventually?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/mullvadvpn on June 26, 2020 18:14:49

>Number go up Well... you don't want number to [go perpetually down](, do you?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 18:04:18

No. For a start, eth has much less active addresses and we're unable to count Bitcoin transactions within L2. Furthermore, what percentage of these eth transactions are for the purpose of p2p cash? Likely, barely a couple of percent of them.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 17:53:54

Because there was, and now still is, almost no demand for the altcoin. Consequently, the chain is seeing almost 0 use today.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 12:21:25

>Go to bitcoin dot com and click "buy Bitcoin" see what they actually try to sell you you...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 04:17:07

Really? Go to bitcoin dot com and click "buy Bitcoin" see what they actually try to sell you you...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 14:16:04

Monero hodlers - "isis kicked the hornets nest... and now the swarm is headed towards us..."

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 25, 2020 13:58:51

>Why is it 3 orders of magnitude and not 3 orders of magnitude + 1 Because this is my personal experience. A user could obviously close it after performing just 1 LN tx .. it's up to them. On the other hand, it could also scale to 4 or more orders of magnitude. >You are basically saying LN requires 1 or 2 onchain transactions for a life time? For that **channel in particular**, yes. Just 1 on chain tx is able to scale upwards of 3, 4 even more orders of magnitude if the users wishes to do so.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 12:48:31

L2 is able to scale 1 in chain TX by many orders of magnitude. What is 500,000/day multiplied by 3 orders of magnitude?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 09:29:27

>"The backlog clears weekly" is not reassuring in the least when Amazon represents 10's of millions of users. There is no backlog in L2. >L2? Lets hope Amazon sees it as you do and supports it. Why wouldn't they? It's a far better UX. Cheaper faster & more privacy. >I am not interested in L2 Nobody cares what you're personally interested in.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 03:14:44

In no way, whatsoever.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 00:19:58

>That is not possible. Even without Amazon BTC is constantly backlogged see here It is absolutely possible, actually. Notice that the mempool constantly empties out every weekend from the link you posted. Bitcoin currently has far more capacity than demand to saturate it. >BTC doesn't have the bandwidth to onboard even 50,000 daily users. Again, false. The protocol has been shown to be able process just short of 500,000 transactions in a single day. This was with a segwit adoption of around only 15% also. This doesn't even take L2 into account which is already able to facilitate many thousands of transactions **per second.**

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 23:52:43

The website is already pro Bitcoin, so Bitcoim proponents aren't exactly trying to take over it.. However, a [bch maxi]( does appear to be interested in taking over it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 23:41:21

bch's best privacy feature? You can send it to an exchange and swap it for Monero.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 24, 2020 07:11:05

>Is BTC decentralized? Bitcoin is, yes. >I'm thinking, with all the core devs This is a conspiracy theory that you've been fed and you've foolishly believed without thinking for yourself. Time to grow up now. Core is one development group. You don't need to run their code if you don't want to. Bitcoin Core happen to write very good code, that's why so many people voluntarily choose to run it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 15:03:16

>It's better to have some little centralization Decentralization is binary. Either the project is or it isn't. It can't be a little bit decentralized. No altcoin project is decentralized. >multiple node implementations and suffer a devastating chain split every 2 years. Multiple node implementations are a good thing although I guess not absolutely crucial. Not sure what project you're referring to about the devastating chain split. We'll see of this upcoming chain split is devastating for bch... although it isn't doing particularly well even before it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 14:13:45

>private Yes, absolutely. The king of on-chain privacy. >low fees Because it has almost 0 users, just like bch. There are thousands of other alts with lower fees. (And not cheaper than Bitcoin LN transactions.) >fast Not faster than Bitcoin via the LN & there are thousands of alts that are as fast or faster than Monero. >decentalised You can't organise a hard fork precisely every 6 months with a truly decentralized network. I'm a huge fan but Monero **is not decentralized.**

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 13:23:09

>Emmm ... nop You asked how my comment related to the statistics shown. Why do you think these statistics are significant then? If bch is to split and 90% of the nodes were in support of one side of it, that would be statistically significant. The same can be said for a comparison between node nubmers for Bitcoin vs bch. It is very obviously better for the network if there are more nodes running on it. This is plain fact. -> More uses are likely to run these nodes if it is easy to do so. -> The main barrier is the IBD. -> Smaller Bocks decrease the pain of the IBD. Very basic logic here. >The context is not that all users need to run full nodes I never said that.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 08:42:25

Not mobile wallets, I generally don't keep any more than $200 on a mobile wallet. The extra hassle isn't necessary in my case. I suspect the number of people that download their mobile wallet app from github and compile it manually is very, very low unfortunately. I do that for Electrum on desktop though.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 23, 2020 00:08:19

>Mobile phones are going to continue getting cheaper. $2:50/day cheap though? You're trying to onboard them now, right? Not in another 2 decades.. >Already - "In 2020, including both smart and feature phones, the current number of mobile phone users is 4.78 billion, which makes 61.43% of people in the world a cell phone owner. (Source: They're going to need a smart phone to generate a wallet though. That figure is just 45%. And its not just the phone, they need to be able to afford regular access to the internet... on just $2:50/day.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 23, 2020 00:01:53

It obviously relates to the narrative that has been pushed within this sub for the last 3 years - by way of attacking Bitcoin. Now that bch is facing its own attack, the narrative seems to have conveniently changed.. and so it seems that it *is* actually very important for users to be able to run their own full nodes. The logic follows. Perhaps a sensibly limited blocksize *wasn't* such a silly idea after all since it facilitates this, especially within developing & emerging markets.. perhaps bch should never have even forked in the first place...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 17:01:21

>Almost half of the world's population live on less than $2.50 a day. And yet, somehow, they have a mobile phone/computer with the data plan and/or regular and reliable internet access required to adopt bch as their new MoE.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 16:50:47

But I thought the narrative was that users didn't need to run full nodes.. And that only the miners are nodes.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 16:38:23

Just checked mine, Eclair is 92MB and BLW is just 23MB. FYI for next time.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 22, 2020 15:12:30

>Part way though discovered Breez is 0.6GB download You sure about this? Just checked on android and it's just 33MB. There's Eclair and BLW to consider instead.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 22, 2020 15:03:57

Not sure I understand .. when you open a channel, you can stipulate that it remains private so that only you and tthe other peer is aware of it. You're node software will not broadcast it to the wider network ecosystem and the channel will therefore not be used by other peers to route transactions as they're unaware of its existence.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 22, 2020 09:27:13

Also, services like are only able to display channels and balances held inside public channels. Mobile wallets utilize private channels which don't show up on sites like that.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 22, 2020 09:03:23

There is 0 Bitcoin on the Ethereum chain.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 22, 2020 08:56:59

And the Bitcoin Lightning Network facilitated an unknown amount of private transactions too!

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 07:02:56

>4.5k subscribers That's approximately the entire bch user base though. It's pretty significant from that perspective.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 00:27:29

I take a look at the BTC/bch chart and it gets me through.. 😉

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 11:08:22

No. Utter nonsense does though.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 10:48:15

>what's the role for BCH in the world then? There isn't one. Never has been one.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 03:47:25

How are you guarding against water damage, fire damage or it simply being stolen?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 18, 2020 01:57:06

It turns out that Blockstream definitely doesn't own or control Bitcoin. Can we stop posting this nonsense now?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 23:38:10

>BCH will be the world reserve currency, just a matter when. >when BCH flippes BTC I'll be rich 😂 🤦‍♂️

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 06:53:36

>L2 is a farce with little real potential other than corporate use with no privacy or censorship resistance. Blatently false. No point in engaging further.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 12:51:05

Transaction compression is but a small piece of the scaling pie. Most throughput is expected to occur in other layers where all transaction data is not permanently stored. >This tiny factor falls many orders of magnitude short of what is required for a global currency. 1 on chain transaction can scale by many orders of magnitude in L2 alone.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 12:24:48

>I am opposed to it because bitcoin BTC failed to scale. It hasn't, it's still in the process of doing so. Why do bch proponents think that, just because they say something, that makes it true? It doesn't. >The promotion of the lightning network appears to be a stalling tactic; also set up for failure Again, this may be due to your lack of understanding. >The LN does not work without reliable transaction confirmations on the base layer: It has them though. >yet the Core devs actively blocked a modest 2MB base blocksize increase "The core devs" doesn't mean anything, there is no well defined group and anybody can upload code to github. The best code and ideas get merged. More bch nonsense. "The core development" couldn't arbitrarily raise the blocksize to 5MB today even if they wanted to. This isn't bch where regular hardforks are dictated to users. You appear to have no conception of a decentralized network or what consensus means. >actively blocked a modest 2MB base blocksize increase. We have mined 2.2MB blocks. >The LN whitepaper says that eventually 133MB blocks will be required: There is no one type of the LN and there are obviously going to be further tech adopted throughout the life of the project. Who knows what tech will be invented in 5, 10, 50 years' time? We service demand that exists today with today's tech. We don't service demand for 30 years into the future, today. >The goal of Blockstream is to sell access to their LiquidTM side-chain. Well they aren't doing a very good job then are they? I can use it for free today. I'm done with you. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you're not even trying. It's embarrassing to respond to you at this point, it feels like I'm bullying a child that can't fight back.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 10:53:09

I'm not sure what your point was with the quotes. You've quoted yourself and said that I said it.. >Honestly, Segwit IS confusing (I suspect it is deliberately so). It's technically complex for no other reason than it had to be to solve the task at hand. There is no plausible reason to make it unnecessarily confusing from the devs' perspective .. don't forget, they wanted it to be adopted, obviously. They had no incentive to make it intentionally confusing. Did you ever consider that the reason you're so against it is because you're having a hard time understanding it? I think that, for most bch proponents, segwit took them outside of their comfort zone. They just got their head around what a public and private key is, a wallet address, wallet seed etc then segwit and the LN came along. I recall very clearly, the LN had me baffled for a short while, it took some time not just to understand the text I was reading on my screen but to form a (sort of) 3D image inside my mind that I could fully appreciate and rotate/manipulate at will as part of a more thorough understanding. At around the same time, I deleted Windows from my laptop and switched to Linux overnight. Now, I'll never go back to Windows and run a full Bitcoin/LN node on my own hardware. I validate and broadcast all of my own transactions, all via TOR (not feasible with full 32MB+ blocks). In the end, it was definitely worth it. >That is one of the reasons a straight-forward blocksize (increase) is the better way to scale. No - for the many reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum. That debate should be over now. bch proponents have their altcoin fork and almost nobody wants it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 09:53:01

>Segwit does not really allow you to increase the number of transactions in a block. Segwit only makes it cheaper the spend transaction outputs. Yes it does, it's a blocksize increase = more transactions may now fit into a.block. The fact/methodology that made it backwards compatible appears to be confusing you somewhat. >If you look at the largest blocks you can see that most of them have less than 1000 transactions. They tend to be comprised of individuals consolidating UTXOs when the mempool empties and they can do it at 1 or 2 sat/byte. Most likely exchanges. >Which kind of brings up the elephant in the room: not all transactions are equal. That's not an elephant in the room. It isn't an issue. >Segwit was specifically designed to not allow more transaction outputs per block than legacy 1MB blocks can handle. I'm aware of how segwit works, you've no reason to be trying to tell me this. You should perform some research yourself.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 09:14:12

This is a stupid comment, nothing more. >BTC isn't Yes, it is.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 08:41:56

>I guess if you're unable to read the documentation and learn the history and instead have to rely on the say-so of internet personalities then you've got a point. Projection. >Unlike Adam, however, I'm not asking anyone to believe me because of who I am. I'm not aware of an instance where he has done that. >Because I'm confident that when they do, they'll arrive at the same conclusion that the rest of us have reached: Bitcoin has been hijacked by the very people who never liked it in the first place. Adam chief among them. The rest of us? The rest of us don't agree with you, didn't want bch, don't use bch and have stuck with the real Bitcoin which is doing very well, unlike your fork. >On your last point, however, you should know that Adam hasn't pioneered anything since hashcash, and has never contributed one line of code to any Bitcoin client. Nor have I. Have you? Why does this matter?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 08:24:02

This coming from the same guy that just told me that Bitcoin blocks are capped at 2,300 transactions per block, despite many examples to the contrary. You might want to look up the definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and *try* to think how it might be relevant in your case.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 07:36:09

>The 40% segwit discount does not change the big picture. It changes the transaction fee (for the better) which is the bch proponent's sole talking point. It pushes slightly more work onto nodes as a side effect. It also fixed transaction mallebility which allows just one on chain transaction to scale by as much as 4 orders of magnitude within L2, even more is possible. This takes an extraordinarily large amount of stress away from L1 which now doesn't require GB blocks to facilitate millions of transactions per second. This, in turn, takes a lot of work away from nodes. >The way POW works, you can include an arbitrary number of transactions in a block for negligible incremental work. This isn't how PoW works. It doesn't even make sense. >BTC caps the growth rate at about 2300 transactions per block Block 634999 held 3,217 transactions and we're only at around 50% Segwit adoption. **You're talking rubbish** and you're also ignoring the many, many thousands of transactions that each one of those could facilitate within L2.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 07:25:57

I'm not supporting him, I don't know him and have no way of supporting him. >You have the same irrational and corrupt mind-frame. Sure. Just because *you* say it, that makes it so. 👍

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 06:06:16

Again, I'm supposed to take your word (some random idiot on Reddit) over the guy that basically invented PoW.... do you not see my point? Say you require surgery on your spine, do you let a surgeon with 35 years experience & who has pioneered the latest techniques take care of it or just let me have a go? It's not a trick question.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 05:56:15

He isn't automatically wrong either. The odds are definitely swayed in his favour in comparison to some random idiot on Reddit. That's the point.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 05:46:08

>I don't even have to go into a detailed explanation of why it's stupid to think that just because the mempool happens to be clear at any instant You said, "at the time of writing." so I checked and you were lying. You weren't even close to being correct. >which is why the fee estimator correctly bases its estimate using that probability. It wasn't even close, hence it's a scam website. Why else would it try to paint Bitcoin in a bad light.... To make its imposter altcoin seem more appealing to unsophisticated newcomers, of course. >I can simply point out that, even at 1 sat/byte, a standard 256 byte BTC transaction A "standard transaction" would be 226 bytes for legacy, 141vbytes for native Segwit. >still costs 20x more than the same transaction on BCH. It's 40x more. **That's because the market value for Bitcoin is 40x that of bch.** You cannot convert to fiat and neglect to consider this. This is how you attempt to scam people, by conveniently leaving out facts or info and also by just outright lying. Consider this, if Bitcoin and bch had the same market price, a standard on-chain transaction with a fee of 1 sat/(v)byte would be far cheaper with Bitcoin than it would with bch. If you use the LN with Bitcoin, it's not even a close competition. >Keep digging. 🤦‍♂️

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 04:43:59

> That's a scam website that's pushing disinformation, see below. Open this website right now **The mempool is empty** and 1 sat/byte will get you into the next block. Tell me I'm wrong.. >Can't argue with a liar. Oh, the irony in this. >As of the time of this writing, a BTC transaction costs $0.94 for next block inclusion, while a BCH transaction costs $0.0012 **This is a lie.** You are the liar. And [here]( is the undeniable proof. Refute that.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 03:46:22

Cherry picking again. Keep looking for the quotes comparing Bitcoin to a precious metal, stating that a high proportion of users should ideally run nodes & talking positively about payment channels. Don't forget Satoshi instigated the blocksize limit in the first place to close a possible attack vector that never actually went away. >Exactly the future that I bought into Nobody cares. You're entitled to absolutely nothing. "Hey guys, lets not add these upgrades to the Bitcoin protocol, there's this guy on reddit called jessquit that didn't sign up for them back in 2013." 🤦‍♂️ >Gaslight harder. I'd love to see your face when 1bch = 0.001 Bitcoin. Perhaps then you'll get it. Probably not though..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 03:35:56

This isn't making something crystal clear at all. I think a lot of people didn't "get" Bitcoin upon first glance of the whitepaper. E-gold, e-cash had been tried before and it failed. Merely more projection on your part. All of this fighting and arguing from bch proponents like yourself - just consider Occam's razor.. **You're wrong and you lost.** That's it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 03:23:51

>That's great, but it doesn't make him right. Ha! But it's certainly a good sign right? What have *you* got? >The white paper calls Bitcoin "cash" and outlines the requirement as enabling "any two willing parties" to perform "casual transactions" between themselves without the need of an intermediary. And this describes Bitcoin precisely. I can send you any amount of Bitcoin I want, right now, and all you need to do is post an address or invoice. So is the whitepaper right or wrong then? You want to cherry pick that part but Satoshi was wrong about Back? Do you even think before you speak? >Satoshi is clearly very concerned about the cost of performing transactions and believes that Bitcoin can perform small casual transactions below the threshold allowed by conventional payment methods. And, again, Bitcoin satisfies this today, faster and cheaper than any fork of Bitcoin too. He was also very clearly concerned about network security, which bch doesn't have .. Again, cherrypicking the points you want to make your own little argument.whilst simultaneously ignoring the bigger picture. >And in his forum writings, he argued that there should always be some free transactions, and proposes a snack machine that accepts unconfirmed transactions. Again, all about cost. Bitcoin facilitates this. >Notably absent? Any argument from Satoshi that the system exists to "store value" or serve in the role Adam believes it should serve. False. See his many comparisons of Bitcoin to gold or a precious metal. >Again, I'm not deifying Satoshi. I'm merely setting the historical record straight No, you're gaslighting, or at least attempting to. >It's okay that Adam didn't believe in the vision of Bitcoin that Satoshi and the early adopters were working towards And there's the r btc baseless appeal to authority. >When you understand what the project was about in the early days you have to ask yourself why Adam ever bought any Bitcoin to begin with, since he didn't agree with the mission? Obviously, he wanted to change the mission. I've thoroughly debunked this stance in the comments above. You don't appear to understand Bitcoin and its value proposition, at all. You have your altcoin fork **and nobody wants or uses it.** >Imagine that I think that creating an Uncensorable Global Turing Machine is a stupid, unworkable idea. But, I think that digital money is a good idea. So I buy a bunch of Ethereum and set to work hiring Ethereum devs and paying them to make the Turing Machine functionality of Ethereum very slow and clumsy. >Mightn't the Ethereum community see this as an act of sabotage? I can't debate the wild fantasies from inside your head.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 03:13:37

That's funny because I get it all the time in here from bch proponents - "I got into Bitcoin in the early days, so I know more then you." If the guys name in in the frigging whitepaper, I think that's significant. He literally inspired the technical creation of Bitcoin and Satoshi himself acknowledged that fully.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 02:39:21

You did. And it made you rich beyond anybody's wildest dreams. Now you use all of that wealth to attack the very thing that afforded it to you. You should be ashamed. Truly ashamed.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 23:56:31

Millions of TX/second possible in L2 alone. The Bitcoin protocol has plenty of room for user growth, you're just so indoctrinated you can't see it. Meanwhile, bch aims to signal capacity for millions of users - that will almost certainly never come.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 23:43:46

This amazes me. Honestly, anybody wishing to study The Dunning-Kruger Effect could use both u/jessquit and u/Egon_1 as subject matter. ~Attempting to school the guy that basicly invented PoW and is actually cited within the same whitepaper that they're trying to use against him [Back] ... Amazing, truly amazing. The equivalent here would be for me to try to explain quantum mechanics to Einstein using his *own* theory of general relativity.. Only, I'm not stupid enough to even consider attempting it... And he's dead.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 21:18:40

That's funny. I sold all of my free bch at 0.18 to bigger fools like you who still hold it at 0.025. bch does not represent Satoshi's vision just because you say it does. It will become undoubtedly clear soon enough.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 20:39:19

Honestly, it's like being back in primary school with you lot. Pathetic.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 09:49:50

>And if someone suggested that we should all still be using 56k modems and compression algorithms will be enough, they would be laughed out of the room, Nobody *is* suggesting that though. A 56k modem & connection could more than handle bch throughput though 😂

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 09:00:02

>Please DYOR: Already done. I kept and backed the real Bitcoin and I'm doing well. You drank the coolaid and backed a project that has almost 0 users and adoption after nearly 3 years and subsequently watched its market price crash horrifically since inception.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 08:15:09

>no difference, as evident from all the altcoins that have been created. They're all utterly useless with 0 adoption. I'm not saying people can't do it, they obviously can. They're just trash that nobody will use and their sole purpose is to scam people out of their Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 07:11:29

>No, it is not. Yes, it is.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 06:47:40

I've got nothing else to add. Everything you've said here was covered in my previous comment & I'm not going to waste my time trying explain segwit to you.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 02:17:37

Well, I shouldn't have to keep saying it, should I?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 15, 2020 00:27:05

>SegWit is a one time fix that can only be applied once. It's blatantly obvious from this comment that you have absolutely no idea how segwit works. >What are the future plans for on-chain scaling that will at least allow for a much higher throughput? Compressing the transaction sizes, including more outputs in a transaction. It isn't only about on chain scaling. Since most economic activity is for small amounts that don't need to be stored on a blockchain forever, the majority of throughput is expected to occur in secondary/other layers. That's the point & you appear to be missing it. >Do you think the block size should perpetually be kept at 1MB + SegWit? Genuine question. The truth is that I have no idea what the future holds and what future demand will look like. Honestly, I think the base backwards-compatible blocksize might be increased at some point within the next 5 years, perhaps to 1.5MB at first. The problem is that this will require a hard fork and would probably result in a chain split with another 18.4M coins printed out of thin air. It *might* happen but I think its very unlikely. On the other side, reducing the blocksize to ~300KB does have its merits (not throughput based obviously) but I think it's even less likely to happen. We don't want Bitcoin to hardfork and fracture like bch, bsv and all of the other altcoins did. Ultimately, it's irrelevant what I think, I can't comprise full network participant consensus on my own. >I think we can both acknowledge that on-chain scaling is necessary to some degree. Sure, I'd rather compress the size of the data rather than increase the bandwidth. This is the more complex/difficult way but it is the efficient way and this is how we've seen the internet play out, certainly for the earlier years. Sure, we're increasing bandwidth now but the way to stream videos and music was to compress the data without sacrificing too much quality - wav > mp3, mp4 > x265 video codec etc..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 23:41:14

It already has scaled past 1MB. Segwit was a blocksize increase of a little over 100% in practice.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 22:53:33

>There is no scam. You click "buy Bitcoin" and it redirects to a page with bch selected as the default. The hope of the perpetrators is that you won't notice and enter a legacy address so that bch can be delivered to it. This is a scam. It's that simple.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 19:15:15

Can you read? "confusing for newcomers".

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 19:02:28

This is pure nonsense and/or propaganda aimed at convincing people to buy your altcoin and make you rich.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 18:41:22

>Yes, the instruction is to buy and not sell. We know that one. No idea what you're talking about. Nobody gives me instructions regarding my Bitcoin. >Segwit allows a tiny increase in scaling. Your confused or just trying to fool people. BTC can't scale up for massive adoption. Approximately 100%, a little more whihh is more than enough capacity for today's demand. I'm neither confused or lying, you are projecting though. Bitcoin is scaling for mass adoption, you're just too stupid to see it I'm afraid. >Pretending others can trust it is clear dishonesty from you or those who fooled you I'd be more than happy to place a bet that the market price of Bitcoin will be at least what it is now, in 2 years' time. This isn't lying. You're a fool if you would take the other side of this bet.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 18:27:38

Known narcissist who thinks karma points actually mean something.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 18:04:19

No, this is 100% fact.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 10:25:15

Username definitely does not check out.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 09:02:53

Nope, just tried it out. Click the 3 bars, top right, click "buy Bitcoin" and you're redirected to a page with buy bch as the default. **Scam confirmed.** >clearly labeled. They both include the word Bitcoin. Hard for newcomers to grasp. How would you like it if you click "buy this ps4" on amazon and they deliver an xbox? (they can deliver either product to the same address)

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 08:30:47

>so, you can count on it if you buy at the "high" to not fall lower? If you're willing to be patient, yes. At least that's what the price history of the asset tells us. Also, you've no idea where the high is. All investments carry inherent risk. >BTC-Bitcoin has a scaling limit it has reached No it hasn't. Segwit adoption is still only around 50% and L2 can scale just 1 on chain transaction by several orders of magnitude. >it is not a reliable store of value. Yes, it is. I've been using it as such for over 7 years now.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 08:20:49

Go there, click "buy Bitcoin" and you get redirected to a page where they're selling you bch instead. (Unless they've changed that behavior recently)

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 07:30:03

They are promoting a scam though, so there is that to consider.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 06:26:44

It is true and the market price of Bitcoin has probably spent some 97% of its lifetime at a lower price than it's at now. (There used to be a website that followed this metric but I can't recall the name)

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 13, 2020 06:16:06

Is it a user error? Paying millions in fees, twice? The defi hacks with hundreds of millions lost, the DAO with another $60M lost..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 23:15:12

>Neither can store value yet So how do you think I've managed to use Bitcoin as a SoV then? >BTC's claims are outright dishonesty. What does this even mean? It's an inanimate network, not capable of making claims.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 22:47:38

>He wanted a p2p electronic cash, which could allow instant payments from anywhere to anywhere almost for free, like a hand-to-hand payment. Bitcoin can't do this anymore. This is 100% false. You're in denial of reality.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 22:29:50

It's almost entirely unused. It never succeeded.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 05:44:11

It's had almost 3 years already. It may get a small relief rally in the next bull run, assuming there is one. >prove that it could survive using same proof of work algorithm as used is Bitcoin. Not really, the dev team were forced to add rolling check points due to the extremely low level of security the chain has.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 05:20:38

You're damn right about that one! However, it doesn't matter that it was *designed* to be that, it's not being adopted as such.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 04:54:19

So do you all finally see why it's a good thing that vitalik didn't build eth on Bitcoin now?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 04:31:21

>In 2018 / 2019, Bitcoin dropped from over $19,000 to $3,300 How far did bch fall?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 04:17:57

Pathetic. You'll see very shortly. >Get lost. No.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 11, 2020 03:42:07

No, it's you who doesn't understand. Bitcoin didn't split into two, it remains unified today. A small group of people copy/pasted the Bitcoin blockchain data, UTXO set and most of the code, then used this to print some 17M altcoin tokens out of thin air and then copied the Bitcoin name too. Unfortunately for these people, you can't copy/paste the network effect that Bitcoin commands. Hence, bch is a failure today and has almost no users or adoption. >Nobody copies anyone. bch wrote their own code entirely from scratch? There is only 1 Genesis block, not 2 or 3 or 70. Bitcoin is finite, you seem to think people can just print as many Bitcoin as they want. They can't. They can print as many *altcoins* as they want, then try to dupe people with propaganda to switch over to use it. >By the same logic, any new Windows 10 update isn't Windows 10 anymore. This isn't the same logic, actually it's you guys that seem to think like this. Segwit was an optional upgrade to the protocol but you all try to suggest that Bitcoin forked away from itself ...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 21:32:17

I can't debate this nonsense.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 21:22:18

You're truly delusional. Right now, you can still hang on to this nonsense. In a few short years, even the likes of you won't be able deny the obvious.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 19:04:42

>Afraid not. Afraid so. All network stats back up my viewpoint.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 18:02:28

Yep. It doesn't matter how long you've been following it. You lost your way and have been following an imposter altcoin since late 2017. The age of a Reddit account means absolutely nothing. Just another meaningless appeal to authority. >BCH is bitcoin Bitcoin is Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 17:48:10

No. It just looks like that because you can copy/paste digital data. You couldn't buy or transact with bch on day one. No Bitcoin software from before August 2017 understands the bch altcoin chain, they all understand Bitcoin today though. You've either been fooled by or are attempting to spread propaganda.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 16:58:06

There is no mention of rolling checkpoints, slp tokens, market data or social media messaging mentioned in the whitepaper. >and is itself the chain that he started. bch started in late 2017.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 16:31:19

This is utter nonsense. Rubbish. This kind of response is exactly why nobody outside of this sub takes the bch altcoin project seriously.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 03:14:22

>Im happy to burn this account Implying that you'll simply start another and engage on the exact same behaviour that you trying to get somebody else banned for.. >Ban LoopNester, ban Greg and his stupid alts, and anyone else that does this, why do you allow these Breakers of Reddits basic rules an audience here to spread their fucking lies and harass people over and over and over This is also against this sub's rules.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 21:15:54

>I no longer use btc due to the poor experience Subjective, personal opinion, not fact. >But now It's no longer necessary since most merchants either dropped it or now accept other coins, usually including BCH. Again, up to you. Far more merchants accept Bitcoin than accept bch though. >If bch didn't have more functionality than btc then me, tether, Satoshi dice, and so many others would not have switched. Tether sill use it and also appear to be moving over to a Bitcoin sidechain, you are irrelevant and so is the one company you've mentioned. >You might not like that but if you want to hate pesos or kroner or Canadian loonies.. or whatever inanimate objects of value I guess... hate whatever you want. No hate here, just fact.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 21:01:00

No it isn't. This is just another scam altcoin with the sole purpose of making the founders rich.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 9, 2020 18:41:35

>In order to define truth you need to define altcoin. An altcoin is simply anything that isn't Bitcoin. It is very clear to the entire ecosystem outside of this small sub and the ~3,000 people that actually use bch. >when BTC is so comparatively useless. bch provides absolutely no functionality, whatsoever over Bitcoin. Furthermore, it lacks Bitcoin's network effect, chain security, performance, decentralization, brand awareness and adoption. There is 0 point in it other than an attempt at usurping the Bitcoin protocol, which failed.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 18:29:37

>I do see BSV as a version of BCH (and by extension BTC) I can't debate this nonsense.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 16:35:23

No, I spelled it out already.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:52:17

>I wouldn't use LN with a 10 foot pole. That's up to you. You don't want to use Bitcoin then. >There are half a dozen way of losing funds if you don't have a PhD in computer science. This is false. I don't have a computer science degree and I've never lost a single satoshi in the 2+ years I've been using it. >And you rely on the wallet provider to hide all the complexity for you (for a fee This is false. Plenty of free & non custodial wallets exist. >that is not what I signed up for with BTC in 2015. Bitcoin is not a subscription service, it owes you absolutely nothing and you're not entitled to free transactions forever. Also, nobody cares what you personally expect from it. >I will do and demand onchain only until I see a valid reason where onchain does not work You are in no position to be making any kind of demand. Nobody cares. >And as long as the Bitcoin I bought in 2016 is available on my Bitcoin Cash wallet, I will consider it as "Bitcoin" if I want. Bitcoin you bought in 2016 are entirely incompatible with the bch altcoin chain. >Besides doing a handful BTC onchain transactions (while using LN) will eventually cost more than a life time of using $0.01 onchain transaction Flsse again. You've obviously never even used the LN. One onchain Bitcoin transaction can scale by 3, even 4 orders of magnitude in L2. bch simply cannot compete with this. >Onchain transactions are infinitely simpler and safer than LN They feel exactly the same actually, you just scan a qr code just as with an on chain transaction. Opening a channel is just the same, it's just broadcasting an on chain transaction. >PLease stop promoting it like its Production ready. It is production ready. **Please stop criticising it when you've obviously never even used it and have absolutely no idea how it works.**

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:23:10

Well thanks for stating the bloody obvious. It was merely an example of the principle that I'm pointing out.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:11:16

There are no versions of Bitcoin. Just Bitcoin. Do you see bsv as a version of bch? Of course not. This nonsense & propaganda has to stop.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:01:05

>I think whats super confusing is when I talk about Bitcoin to new people and after the introduction I have to confess that I was really describing Bitcoin Cash and not really BTC This is just your warped opinion though. So remove Bitcoin from the name and describe that to them. What you're actually upset about is that you want to ride for free on the Bitcoin brand name, but you don't actually have it anymore. >Because Its a fucking lie to say you can send money to anyone anywhere cheaply 24/365. No, it's the absolute truth. **You're actually the liar.** Post a $0.10 Bitcoin LN invoice right now and I can settle it in 3 seconds & for free. That's Bitcoin. bch can't compete and the network stats clearly show that truth.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:50:56

Bitcoin has never forked away from itself. A fork literally means that there are now 2 separate chains. A *soft fork* prevents this. The same consensus rules from 2009 are still valid and compatible with Bitcoin today. Not so with bch. There is an altcoin called Bitcoin Core actually. That's not Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:40:29

>What's the problem with that? This isn't sound engineering. Engineers will design and build a bridge to be able to safely handle the daily stresses it will be expected to endure, then add a safety margin. They don't design it to be able to withstand many, many orders of magnitude more stress than it's expected to actually see. Since you expect the bch max blocksize to always be increased before it's ever reached, why have a limit at all? They're just very poor decisions.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:24:46

The point is that there will only ever be 21M Bitcoin, that's it. All of the forks are altcoins. That's the truth.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:11:34

No. One of the main characteristics of Bitcoin is that it cannot arbitrarily be printed out of thin air. There are no *versions* of Bitcoin, just Bitcoin. Only altcoiners say this.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:55:44

> I can't think of a reason BSV needs to exist seeing that BCH is not even close to hitting the 8MB limit bch isn't even close to regularly hitting 200KB blocks. And its limit it 32MB. It really was a puzzling decision to raise it from 8MB to 32MB when the blocks barely hit 100KB, in my opinion ..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 04:23:55

Irrelevant, really. It still exists. The definition of Bitcoin doesn't include acceptance by a single random corporation. Bitcoin existed for years before bitpay was founded.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 04:13:55

>Bitcoin Cash is a more liquid form (or variation) of Bitcoin The issue I have with this is that the community has come to decide that there will only ever be 21M Bitcoin. If we accept bch as a version of Bitcoin, then we must also accept bsv and the other ~70 forks. This makes the total supply of Bitcoin technically unlimited and it also means that the supply may be inflated, at will, by anybody that cares to do it, whenever they please. I'm sure you don't agree with that. That sounds like the fiat currency system were trying to fix/replace. Edit: furthermore, bch isn't even more liquid than Bitcoin. Far more merchants and exchanges support Bitcoin with far more trading pairs and at much higher volumes.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 04:02:52

Great, now just remove the word "Bitcoin" from the name and it won't be confusing to newcomers anymore.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 02:46:09

>There's additional storage for witness data outside of the blocks, This counts towards total blocksize, only nodes that upgraded to understand segwit recognize this. These blocks are bigger than 1MB as stored on disk. Non-segwit nodes are oblivious to the extended portion of the block and will only accept 1MB blocks as before. This is why legacy-type transactions take up more space - all of the transaction data must go into the backwards compatible 1MB portion of the new segwit blocks.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 8, 2020 20:21:57

I'd advise you to seek professional psychiatric help at this point.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 14:17:31

>I simulated being a merchant that received multiple payments from 2 different LN wallets, which I cumulatively funded with $50 of BTC. What kind of merchant were you simulating? A kids' lemonade stand?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 14:05:38

And release another damn compact model!!

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/SonyXperia on June 8, 2020 12:43:47

That poor girl looks petrified and obviously has no idea why she's there. They're telling her she's a victim and unfortunately, she'll probably grow up believing it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/itookapicture on June 8, 2020 02:08:11

One could argue that the number is technically always theoretical though sincr we have no idea how many of the ~18.39M are lost forever and no proof that they won't be reclaimed at some point in the future. >so the currency of the coin "deflates" No it doesn't. Bitcoin are not created out of debt/thin air like fiat currency is. They still exist within the ledger and cannot be destroyed. Deflation is when inflation drops below 0. This never happens with Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 7, 2020 17:41:05

No. The coin still exist, people just may or may not have lost access to them. We never know if Satoshi will move his coin at some point. The number never goes down.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 7, 2020 17:19:51

No, it isn't. It is disinflationary with a max cap, its inflation rate reduces at set intervals over time to 0 but never drops below 0, so it's not deflationary. Its supply never goes down, only up, to the max cap.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 7, 2020 15:51:35

Bitcoin **is not** a deflationary currency.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 7, 2020 15:32:19

Something is wrong with your wallet or service then if it's suggesting that you pay that much. Mempool has been ampty all day. I've done 4 on chain transactions today at 1 sat/byte. All straight into the next block. Even if the fee you paid was too high, there's still no way you should have had to wait 10 hrs.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 6, 2020 21:45:10

>deceptively sold as bitcoin Oh, the irony in this comment...

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 4, 2020 20:44:41

Any chance of a minor update to include this fix or are we talking about a couple of weeks until the next major version releases anyway? (Don't mean to rush or nag you)

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Electrum on June 4, 2020 16:35:02

I don't need hope, Bitcoin is doing well. You live in the hope that bch will flip Bitcoin, not the other way around.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 4, 2020 09:36:57

>The mempool and fees lately would suggest that BTC cannot support demand No. Full blocks are better than empty ones and there is the LN now if you feel fees are too expensive. The whitepaper doesn't guarantee 1 sat/byte transactions forever. bch has no demand to support. >As for the subs, very few people get banned here and if they do it's because they violated Reddit site-wide rules This is the same for r Bitcoin, I'll say it again, you're not a victim. People get banned from here just the same. >I appreciate you made a choice of your own free will but it was based on misinformation sadly No it wasn't. It was a good choice based on sound data. Bitcoin works, has by far the most secure chain and by far the most demand together with almost 70% market dominance. I made a good decision, you backed a 3 legged horse, the propaganda worked on you, bch has tanked since inception & has almost 0 users.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 19:59:37

>Same to you. LN still isn't ready for the big time. In the meantime layer one is choked off and adoption is disappearing No altcoin is either and Bitcoin can more than hand the current level of demand. Altcoins, on the other hand, have no demand to handle. >If your point of view held water and stood up to scrutiny we could have this discussion on r/bitcoin, but we cannot. It certainly does and plenty of people get banned from this sub too, you're not a victim. >You are a victim of the censorship and propaganda or you are in support of it. Ignorant or a troll. Take your pick. I made a good choice of my own free will. Almost nobody wanted, wants or uses bch on the other hand.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 17:54:14

>You probably don't have to worry about being assaulted just because of your appearance. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you're making broad assumptions yourself. You'd have to look pretty hard to find somebody who hates government more than I do. I have been kidnapped by the filth 3 times and spent (only) a few days in jail. I was also subject to a full body search when I was a child, which is illegal. >When people talk about while cis male privilege It's not a real thing, it's just some word that some retard made up and even bigger retards use. I'm not and cannot possibly be responsible for things that happened 300 years before I was born and I'm certainly not doing anybody any favours to pay back some imaginary debt, today. >It implies that many minorities face even larger hurdles: No they don't. Ever hear of diversity hires? Blacks needing far lower scores to get into college - and Asians requiring far more? You're aware that native white British are now a minority in their own damn capital city? It's people like you who are destroying the west. >that are often compounded by intersectionality There is no such thing, that's another retarded SJW concept. None of this has anything to do with Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 16:44:18

I was born working class & started working when I was 12, which was illegal I'm my country, I lied about my age. I now have chronic back pain from it that will probably never go away. There is no inheritance coming my way. I worked 12 hour shifts from 22 till 32. I'm failing to see where the privilege is, idiot.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 16:18:55

Already upgraded my node 👍

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 15:26:34

>TO AMPLIFY THE BLM MOVEMENT Why the hell would anybody want to do that?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 15:15:59

Already upgraded my node 👍

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 3, 2020 13:59:18

The plan is to avoid having to download terabytes upon terabytes of data in the not too distant future.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 12:55:08

>Let me get this straight. I walk into a store to buy something with LN. I don't already have a channel open No, you've got that about as straight as a boomerang. Suitable analogy - you know how you finish work on a Friday, then you know you'll need your uniform ready for Monday morning again? So you put your uniform in the laundry either Friday night or Saturday? It's the same situation. What you're saying here is that you wake up Monday morning, one hour before work, then start panicking because you just realized your uniform is stinking in the laundry basket. What you do is - simply open a channel *before* you got to the store. How hard is that? **Life is full of situations where you plan ahead.** >Yeah you're saying Segwit adoption will increase to 100%. No, close to 100%, eventually. >I am saying why would people who decided not to implement it years after it was released decide to implement it now? - cheaper transactions for themselves - may wish to contribute towards cheaper transactions for other users - better UI - to avoid transaction malleability - to open a Lightning channel - other smart contract stuff - bech32 addresses have inbuilt error identification Anyhow, most wallets either do or will soon default to native segwit addresses. This will promote adoption.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 12:33:38

>The blocksize limit in L2 is inherited from L1 which is BTC. Both layers are Bitcoin. >Since there is a limit to how many new users LN can onboard at one time there is an implied limit on the growth of L2's 'blocksize'. Sure there's a limit, there's a limit in all altcoins too. Note that it's possible to open hundreds of LN channels with just one on-chain transaction. The conversation I more nuanced though. For instance, a LN channel can facilitate and therefore scale that 1 on-chain transaction by 1, 2 or even 3 orders of magnitude. Even 4+ orders of magnitude are plausible ..This is far more capacity than demand currently exists. >Segwit is optional, don't know why you think it will get to 100% adoption suddenly years after release, Suddenly... years..?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 10:48:59

>Whatever you say buddy. This is a fact though.. >BTC has been maxed out for years regardless of all these convoluted solutions you are holding your breath for. Segwit already activated, the LN is active on main net since early 2018. >If you think the Blockstream crew intends to let BTC succeed as it was intended I have a bridge to sell you You guys never cease to amaze me.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 10:17:51

The is no blocksize limit in L2. 1 tx in L1 can = 1,000+ in L2. Also, Bitcoin only had around 12% segwit adoption by the end of 2017. The limit for L1 isn't hit until we have almost 100% segwit adoption and then there's transaction batching to consider too - and schnorr/taproot upcoming.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 3, 2020 09:32:19

>Not budgeting for landings. How the sheeple think: “Money can be borrowed, it doesn’t have to be paid back”. This is so retarded. Bitcoin is the hardest money the world has ever known. bch was mostly printed out of thin air by a small group of people. >Landings, in LN network and fiat money, are more critical than takeoffs. This criticality is how crooks can defraud innocents. Fail to close the channel in time, you lose your funds. Fail to make your payments in time, you lose your house or car. In both cases opportunities exist for people behind the scenes to conspire to manipulate the pace of activities, thereby enabling the theft. Since everything else you've been saying has been debunked, you're now clutching at straws to find some other issue. You're avoiding the real issue. **Almost nobody wanted bch, almost nobody wants it today, almost nobody uses it and the market price has crashed horrifically since it was printed out of thin air.**

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 2, 2020 14:31:22

>But that's in the future. It's a goal, not a description of the present situation. The fallacy BTC supporters are making is that this level of throughput is necessary right now, which it's not. That's what the block reward is for. There is no fallacy. Recently, since the halvening, fees have comprised 10% - 25% of the total block reward. >Even if there were that much data, only large stakeholders (miners, etc) will need to worry about it. Normal users are fine using SPV. This is where we disagree, I feel that it's better for people be have sovereign control over their wealth and not to have to trust 3rd parties. Smaller blocks give people the best chance at this. >It means BTC produces consistently full 1MB blocks. BCH has the capacity for larger blocks and they are not full. What's your point? It means hat there was is still is almost 0 demand for bch. Almost nobody wanted, wants or uses it. >Insult? I said to go read the whitepaper because you don't understand a fundamental concept of how bitcoin works. How is that an insult? It was a pathetic attempt to insult my intelligence. You show a lack of understanding here, not myself. >I run several BCH nodes myself, both pruned and unpruned, so I'm aware of how they work. Your claim is just wrong. Then why didn't you already know that then? >BTC is not secure enough because I can send you a transaction onchain and then walk away and double spend that same transaction back to myself. You consider that a feature. No, you can't. You can't double spend a LN transaction and I will be waiting for 1 (or more) confirmation(s) for any product or service that is valuable enough or your TX has the RBF flag. >From a user's perspective, BTC is the insecure chain No. The average user can just look up the hash rate. >You still dodged my question of why hasn't anything happened to BCH in 3 years if it's so insecure? bch miners already successfully attacked the chain and my guess is that nobody cares enough about it to attack it. There are plenty of other alts with a market cap in the millions that you can 51% attack for as little as a couple hundred usd per hour, they remain active today though with no attack attempts.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 2, 2020 11:39:56

>How much block space is going to be taken when those 20 channels are closed? 20 unbatched channels closings will take.more space than 20 openings batched into one transaction, obviously. >It’s not the number of transactions, it’s the blockspace These two things are intrinsically linked. At least there's a saving on the openings. A common criticism I get about 2nd layer scaling is that the base layer isn't robust enough to onboard everybody, now the narrative seems to be changing. >Note that takeoffs are cheaper than landings. The landings don't necessarily all occur at the same time, they may be months or even years apart.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 2, 2020 11:29:47

The real question is, why would you pay *any* fee to use bch? There is no shortage of blockspace, therefore, no incentive to pay a fee.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 2, 2020 04:59:28

>learn to loop didn’t address the underlying defect. Open channel 1M sats. Loop Out 500K sats. Now you have a balanced 1M sat capacity channel.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/lightningnetwork on June 1, 2020 18:34:00

It would probably cool the cpu and allow it to run more efficiently.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 1, 2020 18:31:33

It costs [like $5]( **per year** to leave running 24/7.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on June 1, 2020 18:29:47

>What? Where are these millions of transactions per second? What terabytes of data? That situation does not exist anywhere on any blockchain. The BCH blockchain is about 160 GB right now, and normal users only need to download a few KB of data for their wallet to work. This is funny. The only way bch can survive is if this level of throughput occurs, I'm always being told this by bch proponents - lots of people paying very little fees. That's where the terabytes of data comes from. And yes, the bch blockchain is smaller than the Bitcoin one, and bch has bigger blocks. Take a moment to think about what that means. >It's called SPV and its in the whitepaper. Maybe you should go read it. And the last pathetic last resort of somebody who loses a debate, resort to petty insults. >Only miners and full node operators providing services need the entire blockchain, and anyone who just wants to validate can run a pruned node with <5GB of block data. You should tell that to the guys that are trying to convince everybody to fund and run bch full nodes now. The narrative appears to have changed. Also, you should be aware that even whilst running a pruned node, **you still need to download and verify the entire chain.** A pruned node just keeps the tip on disk. Guess you should have gone to read how pruned nodes actually work! >It's secure enough That's not secure enough. >All of that is already being done onchain on BCH with no rise in fees, no need for a second layer, and no third party sidechains. On an insecure chain. If this doesn't matter to you, there are hundreds of altcoins that are faster and cheaper to use than bch. >Ok. Believe whatever you want. I'm about to go do it again with another neighbor. I don't believe you did it with just the one neighbour though.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 15:45:42

>Everything you've said sounds like patching bandaids on top of bandaids to solve problems that have no logical reason to exist. The problem is facilitating millions of TX/second without having to download terabytes of data per week. >I'm not going to attempt to rebut your points because you've done a good enough job yourself Obviously not. If you disagree, fine but you can't provide a rebuttal for what I've said. >I challenge anyone new to crypto to try to follow what you've said and get LN working correctly their first try. Absolutely possible with mobile wallets today. >Contrast that with Bitcoin Cash. It isn't secure compared to Bitcoin. And you can still do all of the on chain stuff with Bitcoin anyway, tokens and complex smart contracts will be done via sidechain. >Yesterday I walked over to my neighbor across the street, who I just met, and handed him a paper wallet from with $3 worth of BCH on it and spent 30 seconds explaining how it works. By the time I got back inside my house it was claimed. Simple. I'm going to go ahead and say that this is a lie. He installed an app, securely stored his seed, claimed the funds and did all of that within the 12 seconds it took you to walk back across the street? That just isn't plausible. And in any case, Bitcoin on chain works in this exact same way. The LN is a second layer to supplement scaling, not all it is.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 14:46:30

>Compared to native onchain BTC, maybe, but this is still a Rube Goldberg machine of a solution to a problem that does not exist on the BCH network. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bch network. >If I open 100 LN channels, each one still has a limited number of peers which it can route through and anytime I encounter a merchant If you open 100 channels, you would be very well connected within the LN. I've never had more than 30 and I've never failed to find a route for a transaction from my node. I had 3 failures back in 2018 from Eclair wallet which only had 2 channels, although I just attempted the transaction again and it went through. >I have to count on them maintaining their own channel to one of my connected peers in order to have a successful transaction. If they are accepting payments via the LN, you'd expect them to actually be setup to receive over it. >This is only in theory No, this is fact. Look up their respective hash rates. >In practice, such an attack against BCH has been attempted and failed multiple times No. Some miners successfully attacked the network to reverse valid transactions that users had accidentally sent to or from segwit addresses. >There is not a single instance I can think of of a reversed transaction, double spend, or chain reorg due to a miner attack The example above. >and actually most merchants will accept 0-conf BCH transactions precisely because there is almost no chance of it being reversed. I'm sure that if you were to buy a car with bch, they will require 10 confirmations minimum. >You cannot say the same of BTC because of RBF We're discussing the LN here. RBF is irrelevant. >Instead of margin trading, if you trade BCH for goods and services in the real world, you don't have this problem either I don't engage in margin trading and more individuals use Bitcoin as a MoE than bch. >But if a channel counterparty closes their channel For a cooperative close, you automatically get your funds back. If they force close, depending on the delay that you set, either you catch them cheating and you get awarded all the funds, your watchtower catches them and you get all the funds or, failing this (using the tech incorrectly) you lose any funds that existed as local balance. Or they merely force close and don't attempt to cheat and you get your rightful funds back. Important note - the Eltoo version of the LN does not require watchtowers since each subsequent transaction automatically renders the previous HTLC redundant, there is no way to cheat. It requires a new OP_CODE to be adopted first. Also for mobile wallets, you may use a watchtower but you actually only need to get your phone online briefly every 2016 blocks ~2 weeks to prevent people from cheating you. >Not everyone has a 100% solid internet connection. You likely wouldn't want to run a full public routing node in that case but note the point about mobile wallets above.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 13:21:05

You can't route through that channel at that particular time if the peer is offline. Your funds are frozen as far as spending via the LN goes. You can just force-close the channel if the peer were to never come back online, so the funds are not lost. Important to remember here, the peer also likely has funds locked inside the channel so they're not likely to want to just abandon the node and leave funds locked up inside channels. There is an incentive to remain online and hopefully gain some fee revenue from transaction routing. I make enough to cover all channel opening & balancing fees nowadays.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 12:22:40

>Yes, but who does more than 1000 transactions in a month (33/day, 1.38/hour)? Some larger exchanges / merchants would see this level of throughput at some point, I'd say. Remember, a channel *facilitates* other transactions too (routing). You're helping the network as a whole when you're opening a public LN channel and have at least 2 channels open to your node. >Might have a niche for micropayments, but not much else. Yes, it's definitely the general usecase but honestly, I've started to make larger purchases this last few months. I bought £75 worth of PSN credit recently, £20 on membership at a website and I regularly spend $5 every 10 days or so - cellphone topup for the last year+. Together with MPPs, I can very easily see daily $5 coffee purchases all the way up to $100 of gas per week going via the LN with no issues. In fact, I see all of that without MPPs but here they are anyway. Purchases of $200+ are made possible with MPPs. >Edit: maybe gambling is an ideal use-case: can't spend more than your channel capacity! Good point. A way to self-regulate perhaps.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 12:18:00

>But why go through all that trouble Though the tools are still being built, it doesn't appear to be that much trouble. You can save a significant amount of time and transaction fees. >when you can just use BCH onchain and there is no risk of your funds getting stuck? There is a security trade off with using bch instead. The bch chain has a far lower hash rate and is therefore a lot more vulnerable to attack compared to Bitcoin. Exchanges and merchants etc require many more confirmations for bch deposits, so there is extra hasstle there too. Also, your funds don't get stuck in a LN channel as long as you follow the guidelines for the tech. You do not require permission to close a LN channel.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 12:06:28

Good question, I don't know if, from my end, I can batch channel closings in the same manner with a PSBT. My instinct tells me that it should be possible but I will look into that to confirm. As for the individual peers, they can obviously close the channels as they wish and that would be 20 separate on chain transactions, yes.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 09:13:22

You can open numerous channels, each to a separate peer which benefits you, the peers and the network (connectivity) as a whole. Without this innovation, you would need to perform 1 onchain transaction to move your funds from cold storage to your node, then 20 separate on chain transactions to open all of the channels which costs you more, takes up block space and subsequently pushes up transaction fees for all other participants. Of course, you don't have to open 20 channels, you could open less (or more). Personally, I would not put that $500 budget into a single channel.. if the peer goes offline, you're stuck. I would split it up into 5x$100 channels to well connected peers.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 09:10:15

Furthermore, using very rough maths and not counting any possible limitations that I may be unaware of, **you could plausibly open 100 LN channels with just 1 on-chain transaction for around $0.47** (0.4 cents per channel & with Bitcoin @ $9,500) Amazing.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 08:40:07

I never mentioned you. There are other replies claiming as such.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 07:29:41

Sure, I'm shilling hard drives now.. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in bch proponents.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 06:34:04

>Nobody in this thread claims that on BTC there are anyone can spend coins in segwit addresses. Yes there are, just read the replies.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 04:09:15

I can personally recommended running a Raspiblitz, I've run one myself for a year now. As for the security measures, you're hosting it on its own hardware (pi4) it was designed with privacy and security in mind. The firewall is set to lock everything down except the ports that you specifically need to be open, you can run behind tor with the click of a button which requires no ports open on your router. Go for it. I recommend a 1TB ssd if your budget allows. With good internet, you can sync the entire blockchain in a little over 2 days. The pi4 costs like $5/year in electricity to leave running 24/7 365. Also, you're not likely to get any encouragement to do this from within this forum, I suspect the majority will try to scare you off with their altcoin propaganda.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 03:39:40

>Just LOL. That's all you can do, that and mindlessly click a downvote button. You're unable to back up any of your claims. Absolutely none of you can prove that 'anyone can spend' coins on a segwit address. (Because it's a lie & propaganda and you can't)

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 03:29:35

But they should have the best chance to do so and have the freedom to do so. This is true financial sovereignty, better than **trusting** random SPV nodes.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 03:19:21

SPV wallets don't require a $3,000 ssd.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 02:26:32

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 20:42:50

You basically just press a button, search or enter a node ID, select the channel capacity (amount you want to lock into the channel) and click open which broadcasts the transaction. I don't have any videos of the process. >No one seems to know how. Do you really think this?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 20:30:48

>Lol, you can't be this.... hard of hearing. I'm reading text on a screen. >Nice trolling. You had me going there for a while. I genuinely thought you cared about the less fortunate of the world. I do. That's why I shall always be one of these people who will be running an spv node that serves these folks. They can't afford this $3,000 ssd that you're promoting though. I'd like them to be able to run their own node instead of trusting your spv node, that's why I'm in favour of smaller blocks... very simple logic to follow. >This is where you repeat that they can't afford a hard drive. Absolutely. They can't. In fact, I think something like 60% of Americans can't even afford a $1,000 emergency. In reality, a very, very small percentage of individuals on this planet can afford this ssd.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 20:18:43

So why post about this very fast, expensive and large capacity ssd then if you're not expecting anybody to ever need one? >If you lived in the third world, you know this to be true. I have lived there. They generally can't afford a $3,000 ssd. They at least have a chance of running a full node on a raspberry pi4 though.. Hence the importance of a smaller blocksize and off-chain scaling. That's my point.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 20:07:22

I've lived and worked in the developing world actually. They generally can't afford a $3,000 hard drive. (the context of this post and discussion)

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 19:56:22

What does that have to do with the context of this post?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 19:46:20

**bch proponents** - "most people in the world will be too poor to be able to afford to open a Lightning channel. **also bch proponents** -" they will be able to afford a $3,000 hard drive though..."

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 19:24:00

You don't politely ask for vital info from targets 😂 truly one of the most bizarre conversations I've had on reddit.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 19:12:07

>Are you conflating my comments about segwit with my comments about the Lightning Network No, just your comments regarding Segwit >Now that BCH has also fixed transaction malleability, the LN can be done on BCH as well: more reliably than on BTC. It can't though.. The bch chain is far less secure than with Bitcoin, you'd see even less fee revenue than the ~$1 per block you get now. Perhaps most importantly, you can't just copy/paste Bitcoin LN code as the bch devs have been used to in the past with their project. Bitcoin LN code has been developed for over 2 years now at the cost of millions of dollars via 4 separate dev teams. You're going to have to go it alone and start from scratch or try and copy the existing LN code and patch it to work with bch. Good luck with that. >A soft-fork is an opt-out change you can only opt out of by a hard-fork. By halting transaction growth, the Core developers forced a hard-fork. No. Segwit was optional. bch was forked voluntarily. Is the existence of bsv therefore bchs fault because you didn't give into their demands.? >I am not great with project management, but to attempt it I would need: >your node's IP address a signed message from your LN's private key authorizing me to attempt it. probably set up at least a passive LN node to verify there is a LN node corresponding to your public key at that address To buy a small quantity of BTC? (yech). A statement as to what is in or out of scope. (For example: is your VM host (if any) fair game?) >I guess for demonstration purposes, I can send the money to one of your Are you joking here? You're joking, right? Why don't you just send me a file containing a RAT and I'll open it on my machine for you? You implied you could arbitrarily and very easily just "fingerprint" and hack my node. Easy peasy. So do it then. If you're this proficient, you can find all of this info out for yourself.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 18:53:09

>No, asymptotic growth is used to estimate the impact at-scale. Segwit reduces the growth by a constant factor, which is not considered important when talking about asymptotic growth. yes, you claimed it both does and doesn't work in your comments. >This is exactly the confusion I complain about in discussing the blocksize. The Core Developers I quoted were careful to say that the base blocksize does not change. You are only allowed to go above 1MB if you are reducing the UTXO set; or more precisely, not expanding it more than a 1MB block would. This has the effect of limiting how many people can get paid in a Segwit block to about the same as you would find in a 1MB legacy block. I agree that segwit takes some time to get your head around but the whole "1MB base block size" was due to the fact that this thing had to be made backwards compatible in the aim of making all parties happy and not forcing these things on users like with a hard fork. The 1MB base blocksize is a consensus rule that old clients will enforce. You're wrong about the limit though, more Segwit transactions fit into a block now than was possible with legacy transaction types. This is where the hatred against segwit comes from - a fundamental lack of understanding. >With the understanding that the base blocksize would be increased to 2MB (we already "debunked" each other on that point). No. They signalled to activate segwit voluntarily. End of story, deal with it. They did not signal to activate S2X past the required threshold. >It would be immoral for me to fingerprint your LN node, then try to break in as soon as a new exploit for your OS or listening servers was found, then force-close your channels, then send the proceeds to my wallet. Tell you what, go ahead and try. "It would be immoral" 😂 like you *actually could* do it if you wanted to, but you're just not going to today. That's a good one.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 18:10:31

>I cited the source: >Segwit improves the situation here by making signature data, which does not impact the UTXO set size, cost 75% less than data that does impact the UTXO set size. This is expected to encourage users to favour the use of transactions that minimise impact on the UTXO set in order to minimise fees, and to encourage developers to design smart contracts and new features in a way that will also minimise the impact on the UTXO set. >The growth of UTXO set is clearly proportional to transaction growth. Further, segwit does not reduce the asymptotic growth rate of the UTXO set (reducing it by 75% or a constant factor, O(1). Now you're saying it does so something and also it doesn't - at the same time. This is opinion. >The real way Segwit reduced the growsth rate is by not raising the blocksize. Segwit **is a blocksize increase.** Hoe else do you think were seeing 2+MB blocks now? This is the most ridiculous claim. >To my knowledge, miners made no request for this change. They signalled for its activation voluntarily. >I disagree: all long as L1 is unreliable L2 is not safe. Bitcoins L1 is *at least* as reliable as bch's only it has a more regular block time and a far superior hash rate backing it. Segwit also provided a tx malleability fix. I'm also tired of bch proponents telling me that L2 is not safe when they don't use it and I actually do. I've been using the LN since March 2018 now with not a single satoshi lost and my oldest LN channel is 1.5 years old, no losses. You've just been told it isn't safe by the propagandists here who use fear to get you to buy their altcoin. And you tell for it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 17:20:58

See this recent [example.]( Near instant and private. This tx probably had 0 fee for that low amount. You didn't really openly as for a video to show how a LN transaction looks, your title includes the statement "The LN is not usable" which can be interpreted as trolling since it's very obviously false. Not really as innocent as you're making out. Unfortunately, Reddit is not a free speech platform and you will be banned if the dictatorial mods feel you've violated their rules. This includes r btc too, don't fool yourself.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 17:07:34

>No that is exactly why I don't like segwit; but it is not from a lack of understanding. It is like (the rhetoric around the fork) was deliberately designed to be confusing. So that when it suits them Segwit supporters can claim "it is a blocksize increase", and when people complain about the forced upgrade, the answer is: "no it is an optional change! A 2013 node can still sync the chain!" These things are entirely true though and it was entirely optional. (To activate and to use) >But that is not even the real issue: Segwit is designed to reduce transaction growth before Bitcoin even hits the "early adopter" phase This is just opinion posed as fact. >I am still on the fence if the Core Devs are "useful idiots" or actively trying to sabotage bitcoin. Then honestly, and I don't mean to be insulting but you appear to be the idiot from my perspective. >Reducing UTXO growth Their criticisms are valid here, this is more obvious if you actually have skin in the game and run your own note instead of relying on others and expecting things to be provided to you for free. Simply consolidating your UTXOs can reduce the UTXO set although there are abvious privacy implications from that. I'd day that 99% of current users favour cheaper transactions over privacy and don't actually perform ardent coin control. Better to use L2 and sidechains where privacy is build right into their respective protocols and active by default. This is safer & cheaper for newcomers too.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 16:52:44

>Incorrect: during the BSV split (November 15, 2018) the price of BTC also dropped substantially, and did nor recover for months. I am guessing people notices the drop in hashpower, because the blocks are full. No evidence whatsoever that this had anything to do with bsv, zoom out. >BTC had it's own companies, like Digital Currency Group, throwing money around. I am not privy to any details of those agreements. Those deals may specify that only Bitcoin Core compatible consensus rules can be followed Both bch and bsv has companies and individuals throwing millions around. >There is no point in continuing this discussion if you are going to deny reality. I agree, right back at ya. 300-350K transactions confirmed every single day, no issues and by far the most robust crypto in existence. You're denying basic facts and reality because of feelings.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 13:01:15

>That is because noobs were tricked into thinking BTC was actually Bitcoin. No, they just stuck with Bitcoin and bch proponents failed to trick noobs into buying the bch altcoin. Lots of free bch were never even claimed from the fork. >BCH has still not recovered from that whole BSV split. NChain funded a lot of Bitcoin Cash startups with patented strings attached. When they said Bitcoin SV is the true version of Bitcoin, and threatened to sue any who disagreed: they took many of the most productive members of the community with them. Whereas the 70 odd forks of Bitcoin never even caused so much as a blip on the radar for us. You'd think that bch could handle the situation given that it's supposed to be so superior .. >That makes no sense: you can't have L2 without a functional base layer. BCH supporters are not opposed to second layers. We have a functional base layer. It works perfectly fine and can more than cope with the current level of demand. >Where? were you using a different account at the time? Other responses, I only have this one account.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 12:33:18

You're a very special case indeed.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 12:20:28

Debunked already and fully explained to you multiple times, note clear use of the word *effectively*.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 12:10:30

>Based on the Bitcoin dominance chart it looks like they mostly went to Etherium. Bitcoin dominance has rallied from 30% to 65% over the last 2 years. Have you taken note of bch dominance? >A fixed blocksize is inelastic and leads to an unstable fee market. Having a hard-blockize cap far in excess of demand, but with individual miners enforcing their own "soft-cap" would allow a stable fee market to form. The reason is that if there is a spike in fee paying transactions, the miners would be able to expand the blocks to accommodate them. There is no such limit in L2. And nobody is electing to use bch anyhow. >They had a meeting with miners at the time. Miners agreed to only run the Bitcoin Core (compatible) software (instead of Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited): in exchange of a modest 2MB blocksize increase 3 months after Segwit activation. >The issue is the the Core Developers never proposed a patch for the requisite 2MB blockisize increase. So miners and Bitcoin businesses proposed their own patch. The Bitcoin Core developer took active steps to block that one. When the blocks predictably filled up. Greq was popping champagne over the high fees. Again, if you look at the Bitcoin dominance chart, many people moved over to Etherium at that point. >It looks like the Segwit soft-fork now, hard-fork later proposal was a bait-and-switch. If they actually planned to hijack the BTC ticker symbol (and Bitcoin name) with their alt-coin, it show years to pre-planning. I debunked all of this already.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 11:56:01

Yes, it does, as fully explained above. You're not debunking anything, you're just saying "no, you're wrong," as if that counts as a rebuttal.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 11:45:51

Yes it does. I've outlined it fully, above. You just don't want to think or admit that it does because you're perpetually trying to view Bitcoin in a negative light only.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 11:35:50

>Horsepucky Look at the empty mempool for proof. >Riddle me this: how do you measure demand in excess of capacity if you let the blocks get full? How do you figure we aren't able to meet current demand if the mempool is empty? >The simple answer is that you set the blocksize cap well above transaction demand. Which is the case with Bitcoin now. With bch, the max blocksize has been set to a figure that will likely never be reached. >Actual tx/day are more lik 250,000. I was being generous. I was referring to your original TX figure and the segwit adoption % at the particular time when thebtx count was that high. (Note also that bch is seeing a pitiful 10k TX a day now that blitzticker isn't broadcasting.) >Bitcoin Cash implemented that already. And it doesn't even need them, I'm guessing almost nobody uses them either. You can force anything you want through immediately with mandatory hardforks and not worrying about pesky little things like gaining overwhelming & organic userbase consensus. >Blockstream captured development No. If they did, they could instigate a mandatory hard fork every 6 months like the bch dictators do. They would likely have shrunk the block size limit by now according to bch conspiracy theories. >Based on the core developers actively blocking (instead of implementing as they had promised to at least look into) Segwit2x They can't arbitrarily block nor implement things. It they could, segwit wouldn't have taken 2 years to pass, it would have taken 1 month. Think about it. >LN network requirements (133MB blocks at scale) outlined in the Lightning whitepaper This doesn't include (as yet) to be invented/adopted signature aggregation tech, PSBTs etc. That paper was written 4.5 years ago. That's 2 years before bch even existed. There isn't just 1 way to do the LN.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 11:20:40

*effective* size. Yes it does. For a standard 1 input, 2 output transaction ; P2PKH = 226 bytes P2WKH = 141 *v*bytes Which is a saving of 37.6% on tx fees. Since fees are directly linked to transaction size in bytes, why then are native segwit transactions cheaper than regular legacy ones if segwit doesn't *effectively* shrink the size of the transaction? >Another misconception of yours The misconception is actually yours.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 10:50:44

> In reality full SegWit adoption it is equivalent to 1.7 We've already seen 2.1MB blocks. And this arbitrary metric is meaningless since the idea is to shrink the effective size of transactions to fit more into a block.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 09:15:28

Debunked all of this already. Still waiting for someone to prove that 'anyone can spend' coins on a segwit address as you're all claiming..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 06:14:25

PtoF s yGqwtFn DsFlJk.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 06:03:19

No. Still waiting for that proof.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 05:30:30

No. I've told you, post the proof of your claims then. You won't, because you can't, because you're wrong, and that's it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 04:30:50

>You again... Yes, me again. You responded to me in the exact same way, twice. >You do not understand how things work here I understand very well. No proof from you then, it seems that anybody can't "just spend", or you would have done it. That's all the proof I need.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 04:10:23

>Sure you can do many microtransactions off-chain, but you don't scale the number of users at all. Every user still needs the ability to make on-chain transactions in the case that something goes wrong with the lightning channel. We currently have way more capacity for on chain transactions than demand exists, the mempool is empty again. The plan is to scale to meet demand as it grows, organically. Not provide capacity for demand that does not and may never actually exist. >At 500,000 tx per day, I estimate BTC is limited to about 1 million users. This was at only at around 12% Segwit adoption, don't forget and not much transaction batching. We also have Schnorr and further signature aggregation tech coming down the pipeline. You can probably double that figure. Then consider that the network can easily facilitate the opening of 300k LN channels per day plus some on chain txs. Each LN channel scales by 2-3 orders of magnitude, or even more if the user wants. This is the bigger picture. >What do you actually gain from the added complexity? Millions of private, near instant and near free transactions **per second.** >Scaling on-chain is straight-forward, and how the system was intended to function So carry on with your preferred coin then. There is no intended way, nobody in charge and Bitcoin isn't a religion. It will scale organically as the challenges present themselves with the best tech available at the time. You didn't honestly think that this thing was going to look exactly the same in 100 years' time, did you? That's similar to religious dogma. A very short sighted way of thinking.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 04:00:21

If you disagree, simply prove it and [spend these coins]( to yourself using an older client. Show me the transaction and I'll gladly concede. If you fail to respond with the proof, I'll assume that you concede.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 03:48:36

>There is, for older clients. No, there isn't. If you disagree, simply prove it and [spend these coins]( to yourself using an older client. Show me the transaction and I'll gladly concede. >The user above is correct in understanding how segwit works for older clients. No, he isn't. Anyone can spend coins on a segwit address with bch, which isn't Bitcoin and is, therefore, completely irrelevant.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 03:38:34

>That way, if your webserver is compromised, the private keys are stored elsewhere (preferably offline in geographically distinct locations). The LN, requiring access to the private keys to generate invoices, is unable to match that security. Sure. Nobody is or should be telling you that the LN has the same security model as on chain transactions (and don't forget, on chain transactions are still an option with Bitcoin too). However, bch is unable to facilitate millions of transactions per second as is already possible with the LN, even at this early stage in its development. Furthermore, it is already possible to send money to someone via the LN without first needing an invioce, this is called keysend with LND although the recipient does still need to be online at the time. I forget the name of the tech but there is a method under development to send money to someone via the LN, even if they are offline and without an invoice, they receive it after they come online again. The basic trade off is that with Bitcoin's chosen scaling path, it is slower and far more complex but the end result is definitely preferable I'm my opinion. Since the world doesn't seem interested in adopting Bitcoin as a new MoE anytime soon (mostly because its way too volatile), I'd say we have this time to build, and we should be taking advantage of that. It has served as an excellent SoV since day one, however. >For a bricks and mortar store, handling cash can be a security risk. This is often mitigated through the use of a "drop safe" where the cashier drops money: but does not have access to the key. Sure. I have setup BTCpayserver on my own node. You can set it up so that the customer can select an onchain or LN payment. It's up to them. You can set it up and import your zpub only, so that nobody can steal the funds - you can import that zpub from your hardware wallet. So any larger payments that the customer would likely elect to use an onchain transaction for, are safe. You also have the better UX and high throughput that the LN offers for smaller transactions. Freedom of choice *and* performance. This is how I see it playing out. Honestly, I don't see the world adopting bch.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 03:28:36

>Very cool. What do you do? Started off with just a mobile wallet, Eclair then BLW. Moved on to running a routing node (Raspiblitz) for about 1 year now. I'm not a developer though, just a regular user. >Are you making use of Lightening, Loop or Wumbo? Yeah I've used Loop quite a bit just recently, I mostly use it to Loop out of a larger channel to balance it more quickly. I haven't opened a Wumbo channel yet, never felt the need to open one with that much capacity and I feel there really is no need now that we have multi-path payments. >Is signed up for the Lightning beta when it came out but never heard back. There's plenty of wallets to choose from now and I highly recommend Raspiblitz if you want to spin up a routing node.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 31, 2020 01:43:32

I'd say your concerns are completely justified, you probably also read about Spectre and Meltdown.. I'm of the opinion that nothing is secure, given enough time and if you remain static as far as your opsec is concerned. Hence the importance of performing regular software and firmware upgrades and also moving over to use open source hardware and software. Eventually, sha256 will be compromised .. we just need to be sure to switch to another secure hashing function well before that becomes a realistically plausible attack vector.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 01:31:00

>Before calling people ridiculous please understand that we are not talking face to face and a lot of communication through text can be misunderstood The claim was ridiculous, wasn't really aimed at you personally. >The "anyone can spend" transaction type is a "trick" There is no such thing as "anyone can spend". If there was, there wouldn't be a single Segwit address with a positive balance. This false claim is merely fear-based propaganda aimed at convincing newcomers to buy an altcoin instead of Bitcoin. As for your point about people losing their coin with bch, that's entirely true and we've seen that actually occur. **This has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin though.**

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 01:18:18

>You're referring to block weight. The limit is unchanged, unless you can prove in the code that it is now greater than 1MB. No. See [this block]( which is 2.12MB, 999vKB, 3992KWU. >Maximum Block Size The maximum size of a block according to the consensus rules. This doesn't include witness data. That's how Segwit was backwards compatible, - the portion of the block that legacy nodes understand still doesn't exceed 1MB. The witness data is *segregated*, not expunged, we still need it. That's how the total size may exceed 1MB and still not violate consensus. >1,000,000 vbytes is 1 megabyte. 1 vMB, not MB. Honestly, I think this is ultimately why some people just don't like Segwit, it's not easy to understand at first glance. Honestly, it took me a while to get my head around it. It's a fundamental change of the block structure to fix tx maleability that also had to remain backwards compatible, and therefore invisible to legacy clients without crashing them or having them fork off.. and a modest blocksize increase all rolled into one.. Genius.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 01:06:34

>If you use segregated witness transactions the "anyone can spend" bit counts against 1MB and the rest of it goes in the 4mb segregated block Nonsense. There is no such thing as "anyone can spend" Bitcoin transactions. If you disagree, then why not just send [these 60,000 Bitcoin]( to yourself? Do you see how ridiculous these claims are now? >If you dont' use segwit transaction, you are still limited to 1MB. If not, then can you please explain to me how a 2013 node can validate a BTC block that has no segwit transactions that is also bigger than 1MB. [Here]( is quite a good video to explain it.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 00:51:27

> the scheme of things it doesn't matter. You simply can't quadruple one of the figures in your maths and say that doesn't matter... >I am talking BTC remains small block. "Small" is entirely subjective. Some people think that the current blocksize is too big. >but the "anyone can spend" transactions still count against the 1mb limit There are no such thing as "anyone can spend" Bitcoin transactions. I'm not sure if you're trolling or just have no idea what you're talking about but there's no point to this conversation after this point.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 00:39:25

>So, on a technical level, the 1MB block comment stands. No, that's incorrect. Segwit allows the blocks to be bigger than 1MB as explained before. The block actually is bigger than 1MB, on disk. What Segwit did was to include an extension block for the witness data that is invisible to legacy nodes, and therefore, they still understand them enough to remain compatible. (The witness data is segregated into its own section, not excluded entirely) The inputs and outputs section of the block can't exceed 1MB as required by these legacy nodes and the preexisting consensus rules. Segwit was indeed a modest blocksize increase despite what many seem to think.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 00:28:15

>so you are saying that one can open and operate an LN channel for life with one onchain transaction? Technically, yes although I wouldn't expect to actually see somebody keep the same channel for their *whole* lifetime.. I've had one of mine open for 1.5 years now as an example though.. >you are saying I can refill my channel without an onchain txn? if you are saying yes, but with help. of exchange... I don't know what that means. I am talking no middlemen trustless Bitcoin. Yes. I said exchange because that's how the vast majority of peolole obtain their Bitcoin but you can recieve from individuals too as part of regular daily commerce. Companies could feasibly pay you your wages 90% on chain and send you 10% into your LN channel as an example, or even 100% via the LN if that's how you wanted it and you had the channel capacity ..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 00:18:05

>You see since BTC has only 1MB blocks No it doesn't.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 00:02:09

>From my perspective it looks like 1MB blocks Right out of the gate, you're completely wrong. Blocks are already bigger than that, we've seen 2.1MB blocks already. Your whole argument is built on that crippled foundation. You're ignoring that hundreds of LN channels can be opened with just 1 on chain transaction, channels can be topped up straight from an exchange (no need to close them when empty and open a new one) and whilst open, a channel can plausibly facilitate hundreds to millions of transactions through it over its entire lifetime.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 23:35:42

>If so, then you would not be claiming the system was not changed. Nothing was changed from the end user perspective. Segwit was, and still is, entirely optional. >The lightning network does not provide nearly the same security guaranties: mainly because you are suddenly required to keep your funds on "hot wallets" Plenty of people use hot wallets with no issue. There are very clear instructions on how you're supposed to use the tech. So just follow them, assuming you want to use it of course. I've never lost a single satoshi and I've been using the LN for 26 months now. >I suppose you can keep your LN wallet offline intermittently, and only connect it weekly for channel maintenance. No, I run a routing node. It has stayed online close to 100% of the time for almost 1 year now.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 23:21:24

It's weird how they tell me the LN won't be ready for another 18 months when i've been using it for 26 months already..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 30, 2020 17:31:32

No need to apologize, I'm not new. >Seriously, read the introduction to the whitepaper. I've already read it, thanks.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 16:42:26

>Nothing changed from a user perspective except high fees and slow confirmation times No. >Re-read the intro to the whitepaper. No need. >Properly managed, cryptocurrency is faster and cheaper than traditional payment methods. And the LN is.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 15:19:15

>So basically a user would/could just keep the funds in a channel as a "spending wallet"? Yes, just like a hot wallet, only better with instant, private and almost free transactions. I've had one of my channels open for 1.5 years now, processed 185 transactions, could have done thousands though.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 30, 2020 15:17:42

No. Dictatorship is **never** justified. Also, segwit just added functioniality and also a blocksize increase of approximately 100%, depending on how users made their transactions. Users were free to transact just as they did before and didn't even need to update their software if they didn't want to. If you didn't want it, nothing was actually changed from the user perspective. It was entirely optional. And that's it. The free market obviously wants and accepts segwit. They're not choosing to use a fork/altcoin.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 15:00:56

>The Core Devs never restored Gavin's access when it became clear he was not compromised. Gavin was a fool, as you already admitted. He also displayed aspirations of becoming a dictator over the Bitcoin protocol; *“That may be what has to happen with the block size, frankly. I may just have to throw my weight around and say, ‘This is the way it’s going to be. And if you don’t like it, find another project.'”* ~Gavin Andresen There is nothing more to say.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 14:24:15

>During the Double 11 Shopping Festival in 2019, the maximum number of transactions made on Alipay reached 544,000 per second According to [this]( stress test, the Bitcoin Lightning Network can facilitate this ammount of throughput with just 2176 channels. According to, there are currently 35,745 channels, not including private ones. This stress test was performed almost 2 years ago.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 11:55:28

Desperately grasping at straws. >read my link No thank-you. It certainly wasn't Satoshi, that's all that's important here.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 11:17:32

No, in actual reality. Definitely.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 10:09:53

According to roger, he is;

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 09:58:35

It basically means that there was very little demand for and subsequently, very little usage of the bch chain.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 07:26:02

So stop talking then.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 06:33:34

He's not wrong. The very creator of bch has woken up to the truth at last.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 05:40:39

Eth only has a base layer.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 05:25:38

>The latest raspberry seems fast enough to synchronize and verify in a reasonable time frame so I should give a full node it a try.. The pi4 can perform initial sync in 3.3 days over tor with an ssd and decent bandwidth, probably a little over 2 days over clear net. Do it. Be a part of the solution. I highly recommend Raspiblitz.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 29, 2020 12:47:04

>A standard on-chain transaction costs ~$1000 in fees. Not a very good start.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/lightningnetwork on May 29, 2020 12:41:36

>No, they were hacks on things using ethereum. Ethereum was always secure. If that counts for a 'base layer' then mtgox loss and every exchange hack ever was a base layer hack on bitcoin. No, they're base layer attacks. Eth only has a base layer. >The chain was reverted with a 51% attack. It happened two times in fact, the second time was when a new node produced an incompatible block in 2013. At least one exchange was stolen from in an opportunistic double spend attack - okcoin. That isn't a 51% attack. There was an inflation bug and a database bug that caused a fork.. You haven't provided any figures as to how much was lost. With eth, something like $60M was lost in the DAO and one of the latest defi hacks lost $150M going from memory. >Nothing comparable happened in ethereum because there were no exploits on the base layer. All exploits are on the base layer. **Eth only has a base layer, tokens exist on the base layer and all smart contracts exist on the base layer.** How can I make that any more clear? >You can prevent the theft of $5 by paying $10 in fees. So while technically you can prevent it, you lose money in the process. Actual amounts depend on the current fee level. The LN didn't exist when the median fee was $10. Pure nonsense. >Is worthless. Funnily enough, this is research by Blockstream. The idea is old and obvious, but as everything in bitcoin depends only on the perceived authority of the source, it was ignored before that. Debunked this in my last comment. >No, that's literally impossible. There's no information on the payment origin on-chain, there's only proof you have the right to spend it. The worst that can theoretically happen is that it's possible to generate false proofs. No, wrong yet again. Given enough time, all cryptography can and will will be broken.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 11:06:26

>So far, ethereum had zero hacks on the base layer, are you serious,? you ever hear about the DAO, Parity hack and I think there have been at least 2 defi hacks to date, one falling victim to an issue with the erc777 standard.. These are base layer hacks due to buggy code and millions of dollars worth of value was lost forever. & Ethereum only has a base layer. >while bitcoin had one (value overflow bug). You're referring to the inflation bug? So how many mlions of dollars do you estimate was lost? How many Bitcoin were locked up forever never to be spent again? >Ethereum is much safer than bitcoin. **This is by far the most stupid thing I've read on reddit. Ever.** >This is wrong. Htlc relies on trust for amounts smaller than fees, because enforcing htlc costs more than the gained amount. Which means if I want to close the channel anyway I can wait for a victim to transact and try to steal his htlc payment. At worst, I lose nothing. No, this is most certainly correct. You do not need to trust anybody, in any way, shape or form to use the LN. Nobody can stop you from closing a channel and nobody can steal funds from you as long as you're using the tech as outlined in the support documentation. **If you think you can easily steal funds from a LN channel, you're more than welcome to try and steal from me. Let me know.** >This is wrong too, ln can be deanonymized by active probing. Ethereum already has a zk-snark mixer with a constantly rising anonymity set - No, again, you are wrong. The LN privacy model is similar to that of tor, which people use to buy illegal things every single day and nothing happens to them. A very small amount of tor users have been deanonymized in the past and it's almost always down to their personal practices. Also, as with absolutely 100% of tech/code/software, bugs will be found all along it's lifespan and fixed. This is a normal part of development. There are already several ways to anonymize on chain funds before locking them into a channel, you can run your whole setup behind tor also. Finally, you can open private LN channels, which mobile wallets do by default and these are not broadcast to the wider graph. You can't probe these unless you happen to be one of the peers and the other peer is online at that precise time. Since the "private" eth transactions you're referring to are permanently stored on chain, they may and probably will be deanonymized at some point in the future. Md5, sha-1 are no longer secure for example.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 10:00:34

Except that wrapped Bitcoin on ethereum is just a meaningless token. You have to trust that you can actually get the real thing back, that eth won't suffer *another* major multi-million dollar hack or perform another hard fork without gaining consensus. With the Lightning Network, you are transacting real Bitcoin HTLCs and there is 0 trust or permission required. The LN is also capable of far cheaper, faster and more private transactions than eth is able to facilitate.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 05:07:22

More deflection to avoid reading the quote and tackling it head on, which you can't.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 29, 2020 03:48:20

>real usage level was always ~10k/tx day. Absolutely. Now ask yourself this, do you think that this is 10,000 individuals performing 1 transaction each per day, or more likely, something like 2,500 hardcore fans performing 4 transactions per day...? I'd say it's the latter. After all of this time and money spent pushing it, bch likely has just a couple of thousand users in total and they all live in Australia apparently..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 19:21:12

No, you can open a channel any size you want since you're just instructing software to broadcast a transaction. You can get around the safety limits that are active by default. [Here]( is a channel with 2.68BTC capacity.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 28, 2020 18:10:46

Everybody is a redditor for less than 2 weeks at some point. It means absolutely nothing. I first used Reddit probably 7 years ago and Bitcoin, 8.5 years ago.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 14:40:50

Wonder where I'm goin wrong then..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/pivpn on May 28, 2020 14:34:35

The crontab? Yes I got that to work, my DNS service generated the unique URL and I put that into a crontab as per the instructions provided. I still didn't get pivpn to work though..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/pivpn on May 28, 2020 14:00:16

>comparing the "LN" to onchain BCH as if they're equal is a fallacy. LN transactions are faster, cheaper and more private, so I guess you're correct. A LN transaction offers a far superior UX to an on chain transaction. >the majority of the world's people will never be able to use the "LN" in a free and open manner. Sure they will, I'm not wasting any more time with you.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 13:58:20

>he was right about what needed to be done for btc to continue functioning in the intended manner So you're agreeing with the wannabe dictator. >now it doesn't. Yes, it does. >the majority of the worlds' people will never be able to use btc as cash. The LN alone is already capable of tens of thousands of transactions **per second**. bch would require multi GB blocks to compete with Bitcoin, in terms of throughput, today. There's no way the project could propagate multi GB blocks today or even most likely within the next 10 years using affordable, consumer-grade hardware. The majority of the worlds' population will indeed be able to use Bitcoin and in a decentralized, free and open manner. It isn't *just* that the majority of the worlds' population wont *be able* to use bch, **they simply won't even want to.** Low amounts (less than $5 worth of Bitcoin) may be routed via the LN instantly and for free - **absolutely 0 cost.** bch simply cannot compete with that.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 13:34:39

>Yes, you can indeed use a custodial service to open a billion channels for you. PSBTs do not require a custodial service. In fact, I'm not aware of any custodial services that even utilize PSBTs yet. >That service will route your payments and act as a watchtower so your funds are never lost. Soon you'll never need the base layer at all! I've got no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you have any idea what PSBTs are.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 13:21:48

I've had the exact same issue with the wireguard option. I've also noticed that a port checking service online shows my ports have are closed but I've definitely opened them correctly and pointed them to the correct static IP I've assigned to the pi within my LAN. I'm always able to get things like this working but I'm stuck with pivpn. One thing, I set up a crontab to call a specific URL every 5 minutes to update my DDNS service of my IP address .. Since yours also isn't static, I'm guessing you'll need to do that too unless your router handles it automatically.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/pivpn on May 28, 2020 09:43:26

>No, it's saying you're not using your real account because you know your BS'ing So there would have been a time when your account was just a couple of weeks old... somehow I'm guessing everything you were posting was real though... Ridiculous. No logic whatsoever. A simple quote from one of your heros that shows him to be a bad actor and this his how you respond... it's pathetic.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 08:29:30

>2w old account checks. This has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of comments posted, it's merely a pathetic appeal to authority. >The quote doesn't support your claim ( "I may just have to"). My claim is that he displayed aspirations of dictatorship and that incudes a willingness to go through with it. The claim stands true. >The side you're arguing for DDos'ed and threatened instead of discussing. No, again just saying things as if that makes it so, it doesn't. I haven't said that. >What is wrong with you? Please ask yourself that same question, I responded to that already.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 08:08:58

What's wrong is that I'm correct and you disagree with me, which means you're on the wrong side of this discussion... And that probably makes you feel quite uncomfortable. Read the quote I posted that came directly from Gavin himself and tell me how I'm wrong here.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 07:14:12

>False dilemma. Omg, Satoshi threatened to control publishing of the code and even the whitepaper! Please don't demand we also toss out the guy upgrading from fast ethernet to gigabit. This is actually the false dilemma, I haven't said any of this. You can't tackle my point head on (because you'll obviously lose) so you suggest another argument in the hope that you can win that one instead. >Also, false attempted characterization of everyone here. Lame. It's absolutely true though. >At least tell us the real reason why you needed him gone. I didn't, the entire community did - and so it happened. There's obviously no place for a dictator within a free, open and decentralised system.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 06:16:28

He was right to attempt to become a dictator over the Bitcoin protocol? We have a very different understanding of decentralization and consensus it seems.. >now btc is a creaking, dysfunctional pile of garbage This is just pure nonsense and projection, it works perfectly well. You really do yourself a great disservice by making such stupid and unfounded comments.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 06:06:23

>Every lightning channel requires a on-chain BTC transaction to establish. You can now open tens to hundreds of channels with a single on chain transaction using PSBTs.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 04:35:47

Gavin accusing others of trying to hijack Bitcoin when that's **exactly what he intended to do himself.** He was very vocal about his intentions, *“That may be what has to happen with the block size, frankly. I may just have to throw my weight around and say, ‘This is the way it’s going to be. And if you don’t like it, find another project.'”* ~Gavin Andresen Gavin displayed his intention to become a benevolent dictator and seize control over the Bitcoin protocol. Consequently, the Bitcoin community expelled him and rightly so. Absolutely none of you will acknowledge this though, yet if something this insidious came from the mouth of a Bitcoin proponent, you'd never let it slide.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 04:25:08

As they stand, no. This is due to a database bug with Berkeley DB. As far as I know, if you were to fix this bug, the older clients would sync also.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 02:34:55

My comment there was entirely accurate. You do not need to dust someones address to follow the funds from it, you can just monitor the address and susbsequent outputs anyway.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 28, 2020 02:29:20

>For me the ability to have a 2013 piece of software being able to sync is not as important as being able to use the cryptocurrency cheaply 24/365 ripple, TRON, EOS & dogecoin all provide this if these are your criteria. The point is that this software from 2013 existed at a time before the scaling debate and is undeniably Bitcoin. That same software syncs only to the true Bitcoin chain today. It is absolutely undeniable.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 15:45:00

The link isn't gone though, none of what you're saying makes sense. There was a chain of signatures before segwit and that same chain of signatures continues all the way up until today with the ~50% of daily non-segwit transactions, if you want to look at it in that specific way.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 15:19:41

You don't need to, you can simply refill your existing channel.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 27, 2020 14:16:05

>It is furthermore required to be a chain of cryptographic signatures. SegWit breaks that chain Some 50% of daily transactions today are non-segwit. Bitcoin today is therefore both a chain of cryptographic signatures (legacy type transactions) and valid, signed transactions (segwit transactions). In short, segwit broke nothing and merely added functionality. It was an optional upgrade - optional for miners to signal to activate it and entirely optional to the end user.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 13:45:18

>I am thinking that a 2013 node will indeed sync, but it can't be used to mine It will sync, all the way to the present Bitcoin chain tip. It will also validate/broadcast non-segwit transactions too. It will not sync, recognise nor understand the bch chain in any way whatsoever though.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 13:34:54

I've just tried this out too (wireguard) and I cannot get it to work properly... it just wont connect.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/pivpn on May 27, 2020 11:19:41

I really hope Mullvad integrate the Lightning Network into their Bitcoin invoices. Such a better UX... cheaper, far more private and almost instant.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/mullvadvpn on May 27, 2020 08:46:38

I figure it's really just a way to force people to pay higher fees if you don't notice and happen to spend the dust within your next transaction. Since the attacker already knows your target address, they can just follow that via the blockchain.. there is no requirement for the dust to be included for tracking purposes.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 27, 2020 08:29:19

Loop in/out is spending/receiving local capacity and having that land/come from on chain funds. The channel capacity remains the same. Splicing effectively redefines the channel perameters with new commitment transactions. You can remove funds to your side and the total channel capacity is decreased. This is particularly useful as the price of Bitcoin changes against fiat. (A 1M sat channel today is $90 but with the price of Bitcoin at $100K, that same channel is now worth £$1,000 and people may not wish to have that amount locked up.) You don't have to close channels and open new ones, just shrink the max capacity of an existing one which requires less on chain transactions.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 26, 2020 03:01:31

Yes, it will take time for wallets/front end apps to implement the recent changes. I've only performed a MPP via terminal with LND. >looks like LND specifically released multipath payments (MPP) in v0.10.0, which isn't the same as AMP Yes, I'm still referring constantly to it as AMPs still, force of habit, I read about them for a long time before it arrived as MPPs..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 25, 2020 15:20:52

Nice PSA. I had to enable this for Bitcoin Lightning Wallet to work again..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 25, 2020 13:42:40

>Is AMP already out there? I missed that As I recall, all major implemtations have supported receiving AMPs for a good while now and LND supports sending them as of v0.10.0 which released a couple of weeks back. Pretty sure C-lightning has full support also. >And who's using cross chain atomic swaps already? I don't know of any well known/used services but the tech has existed for a good while. [Here's ]( an article from way back in 2017.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 25, 2020 13:40:13

There is no version 4 yet. You may have downloaded malware.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Electrum on May 25, 2020 12:34:39

>When you click on the buy bitcoin button they want that you buy bitcoin trash. (BCH) Commonly referred to as a scam, which it definitely is.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 25, 2020 10:00:56

I've used it, that's not splicing though.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 25, 2020 09:59:13

That's a shame.. How is the bch satellite doing?

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 08:26:27

2 if those 3 upgrades already happened. Splicing will be handy..

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 25, 2020 08:20:08

>Imagine you have to pay 50$ to lock up 100$ in the 2nd layer. Imagine that $100 would merely be the channel capacity, expressed in fiat, at that particular point in time. That $100 capacity channel could very well be a $500 capacity channel in the very near future. Imagine you can receive your Bitcoin into that channel instead of on chain. Imagine that the channel can stay open, facilitate thousands of transactions and remain useful, indefinitely.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 23, 2020 09:36:43

>Bitcoin is deflationary No it isn't. Bitcoin is disinflationary, up to a max cap. Inflation never falls below 0. It is, therefore, not deflationary.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 23, 2020 09:31:16

[Raspiblitz]( does all of this, plus it's a lightning node too. You can activate tor, Electrs (Electrum server) and JoinMarket all from the main menu with automated scripts.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 23, 2020 09:23:49

>Is there now a wallet that automatically gives you inbound capacity for free? Bitcoin Lightning Wallet gives you free inbound capacity via something called a 'hosted channel'. You simply need to select the option within the channel opening dialogue. It's unlikely that wallets will open free channels with inbound capacity automatically for every user that installs it, think of the on chain fees... you can also simply get inbound capacity with your existing channel by spending with it too.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 22, 2020 08:27:25

You can sign P2SH and P2WKH addresses with a message using Electrum.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 22, 2020 02:59:24

You have to trust that it will finally settle though. Bitcoin fixes this.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 21, 2020 23:31:17

>but then it takes 3-5 business days to resolve. It's merely just a floating IOU for a while. I never thought about it like this but Visa transactions are quite literally 0-conf transactions until they finally settle, months later.

Commented by /u/IllList3 in /r/Bitcoin on May 21, 2020 11:27:29