bitcoin segwit rn

>>3210675
Do you even understand what Segwit is?

>>3210689
i sure do.... do you?

>>3210733
It's a hack which fixes transaction malleability and provides a small capacity increase. What the hell does that have to do with full blocks?

>>3210763
the block are still pretty full there chief
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size

>>3210675
Reddit is censorship by groupthink, including r/btc

Which is where you should go back to.

>>3210821
I'm fully aware. Still has nothing to do with Segwit.

>>3210867
was segwit not supposed to fix this problem? yet people are still paying $5 to send $20 worth of bitcoin.

>>3210886
you're thinking of lightning network. that comes next

>>3210886
No, it wasn't. It was pushed through to fix transaction malleability and make developing LN easier.

>>3210898
>>3210906
what is the subscription fee going to be again?

>>3210842
Unfortunately correct statement here.

File: uwot.png (153KB, 268x370px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 268x370px

>When a corefag calls you a traitor for buying BCH
>When a corefag says you're "hurting" bitcoin by taking your money someplace else

Bitcoin is now a cult for some people

>>3210919
merchants who want to use LN will pay some kind of fee to get their transactions done fast and cheaply. this will solve the "coffee" problem.

File: WUT??.png (139KB, 1084x397px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1084x397px

What is Bitcoin Cash doing? they are doing all the signs, counting and the alphabet..

>>3210919
Why do you assume I support Core or their road map? You reddit fags are so obnoxious. You and r/bitcoin both. Just brain dead parrots.

I support on-chain scaling but LN (with all its disadvantages) remains the only viable option for long term scalability and micro-payments.

You're probably misinterpreting that post by the way. The "subscription fee" is simply the large transaction fee up front (to the miners) in order to facilitate LN transactions. The fee model changes to one paid per transaction to one paid per unit time. LN is an idea and it's literally years down the line. Core will (probably) be first to market because they're developing the tech - if they abuse their position anyone can step up to the plate.

>>3211136
LN is literally the death of BTC. https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

>>3210898
>>3210906
what is the subscription fee going to be again?

>>3211238
Then don't use it.

>>3211286
Typical reddit response.

File: BITCOIN_CLASSIC.jpg (335KB, 2524x1440px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 2524x1440px

THE BITCOIN-CLASSIC OF 2014 THREAD.
AS SOON AS THE SEGWIT IS ACTIVATED, I WILL MAKE A HARD FORK, AS IT IS SAID HERE:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2018878
AFTER THIS BITCOIN CORE CLIENTS EARLIER VERSION 0.14.1 WILL START REJECTING NEW BLOCKS.
THE DIFFICULTY WILL FALL AND IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO MINE BITCOIN CLASSIC EVEN IF THERE IS NO MINING POOLS.
IN THE BITCOIN CONSOLE, THE COMMAND "setgenerate true".
INSTALL BITCOIN-CORE OF 2014 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.9.1 AND SAVE YOUR BITCOIN-CLASSIC FROM THIEVES.
BINARIES MOVED HERE https://bitcoin.org/bin/insecure/bitcoin-core-0.9.1/ (DEVELOPERS SCARED, NO ONE TRUST EM)

Question about LN:

Is there a reference implementation, or is it basically a blackbox? Anyone could implement a lightning network of their own design now that the transaction malleability has been resolved?

>>3211429
No reference implementation yet. Anyone can develop their own LN but you'll need lots of liquid bitcoin and a lot of users to make channels on your hub worthwhile.

>>3210675
stop mining BCH pls