@tek,

LOL now you can fud.

There is no huge scaling fix, segcrap moved witness data out of the 1MB file , the file is still limited to 1 MB, no matter what.
Which means by removing the witness data , you may have up to 60% of the 1MB file free.
And that is only if all of the witness data is using segwit addresses, if any uses the nonsegwit addresses they decrease that 60% much lower.
Segwit will be a theoretical Max of 1.7MB File size (1MB fixed+~.7MB segwit witness data)  according to Core own records.

Lightening Network is Offchain Transactions , totally a waste of time, Exchanges could provide offchain transactions without all of these shenanigans.

Nothing in segwit or LN do anything to stop spam transactions.
As they can't tell a normal transactions from a spam transactions.
All they do is raise the fees, and they did that before segwit activated.

And the so called Malleability Problem was caused by Core Devs when they changed Bitcoin to no longer process transactions in order, but allowed higher fees to jump ahead. And it has been an issue for years they never worried about fixing until now.

By the way a non-segcrap solution to the malleability issue is Flexible Transactions.
https://zander.github.io/posts/Flexible_Transactions/


╥Aztek

I'd say there're no spam transactions at all.
Every transaction is legitimate regardless of its purpose.
It's like saying pennies are not money, and we should get rid of them.
OK, we could do it, but what would we need 2 (or 8 in BTC) decimal places for, then?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spam

"Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc."

certain transactions exist solely to screw up bitcoin's functionality. that's spam by anyone's measure. i dunno how you combat it, but one address sending itself thousands of low or no fee transactions only has one purpose.

Yes, you can do what you want with your money.
If the network cannot handle transactions that are technically correct, then it will just collapse, and better solution will emerge.

That was a tiny instantaneous attack im meaning a continuous one and yes the small one was wiped in one block but how would it cope if every 8MB block was full its going to take a considerable longer time to verify which means the creator of the block has a good head start while the others are mining on just the headers while its verified meaning more empty blocks

Ive no intention of doing so just stating if it was to happen it would fail just like BTC does having a larger block does nothing long term its just a short term fix just like segwit is

The only difference is segwit does allow for greater scaling in the future LN gets a lot of grief due to some issues it has but don't forget its still in alpha and these issues are being worked on and the only reason LN gets the main focus is because its being developed by core/blockstream  but it will not be the only player in the game now transaction malleability is fixed it makes it much easier for 3rd parties to make and use there own solutions which could be better or could be worse we have the choice and users will vote with their BTC.