Surprisingly, you agree with an increase of block size, then why so critic about Classic. I think the purpose of Classic is just to bump the block size a little bit and practice hard fork, because with a hard fork, even segwit can be implemented more neatly
Surprisingly? I was(am) supportive of dynamic blocks, 2 MB blocks (once the validation problem is fixed), and other proposals. What I'm not supportive is: 1. Controversial hard forks; 2. 2 MB blocks with a bad workaround for the validation problem. Let's not forget that Classic essentially has no team excluding Garzik and Gavin. Come on, what you want to say is "Im not supportive of this at all"  Let's not forget that Classic essentially has no team excluding Garzik and Gavin Not true at all. There is quite a good team getting behind it. Anyway, nothing for you to worry your little head over, eh? Or is it? |
|
|
|
By the way, you know that pre-fork coins could also be sold off on majority-fork exchanges? Particularly because early adopters might be a little pissed off at the commit keys for bitcoin's dominant implementation being in the hands of a junior dev who wants to make the question of inflating the money supply a democratic one (jtoomim). How do you know who controls millions of pre-fork coins? You can be sure that I'll be dumping everything the second Toomim gets the keys to the kingdom, and I know several likeminded people.
This is the most likely outcome. Once we start selling everything and the price starts crashing, everyone will join in on it. I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground. 28113.50234684 Ƀ (84.89%)Gavin said himself that he doesn't see bitcoin as a store of value, just a means of exchange like any other currency: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204.msg1714#msg1714This is my feeling about the loud-and-proud forkers. They're not very invested in bitcoin; they aren't big holders. They don't care about bitcoin's value proposition -- they don't bother to understand the limitations of the system and they don't care if they burn it to the ground. Those of us who have been investing in bitcoin for years don't take these issues lightly. Yeah, says the guy who joined on Nov 29, 2013. bitcoin value = $1100 SFYL. Keep the chin up there, old boy. It may come round again. Core diehards like you believe the Central Banks are queuing up to buy your coinz at $2300 each - just get rid of the pesky "users" first. Maybe it's because they aren't "bagholders" that allows others the clarity of vision to see where bitcoin is really going to go. Perhaps your need for a Messiah is clouding your own judgement. |
|
|
|
And the stampeding herds of noisy Gavinista Lolcows are more comedy than adversity.
 |
|
|
|
Hum so, basically you just go for anything strangers tells you to, putting literally YOUR money at risk at every corner??! just wow.  No, that is called "Supporting Core". And its not YOUR money anymore - Its AXA/Horizons. So be careful you dont get it grubby with your filthy hands before they can collect it via LN. Thank You. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty confident Classic will fail to gain consensus. Core will win this battle & then we can forget about all this crap & look forward to the halving.
The great news about all this infighting , is if bitcoin can survive this, than it shows how resilient it is to politics changing the protocol on contentious issues. Once this chapter is behind us there will be no doubt that blacklists, KYC will have no place in the protocol or the 21 million limit would ever be changed. 2 more months and this will be behind us. On the other hand, if core fails, it will prove that 3 or 4 devs cant take a codebase written and developed by hundreds over 7 years and sell it to the highest bidder for their own gain. PwC? GTFO! AXA? GTFO! Private Shares in Blockstream worth millions? GTFO! Google/USGov - USGTOR Lightning networks - no thanks! ps: why cant the 21m not be changed via a segwit like soft fork? |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.
+1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment. We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it. I don't think Satoshi would be hip to these new implementations. There. I said it. What? Read down a few posts and he says this: It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade. Dont be a slacker, BMB!!  |
|
|
|
It doesn't need to 'imply' anything. It either is or it is not. Miners will take the path that they feel will resolve the issue best and has the best chance of succeeding.
Classic isn't the right path especially since the miners requested 90% threshold (IIRC) and Gavin refused to listen to them. Albeit you make a point though; there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch. Chinese math. The 60 percent wait for 90 percent consensus. Joke of the year. |
|
|
|
[
I said 'you guys' as in the 'forkers'. Didn't mean you specifically though. I however don't see consensus among the industry; and forking at any random number above 50% does not imply consensus at all.
It doesn't need to 'imply' anything. It either is or it is not. Miners will take the path that they feel will resolve the issue best and has the best chance of succeeding. |
|
|
|
where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide?
Part of the time you guys are talking about the economic majority being important, then about the miners being the sole ones who decide. What's next? Make up your mind. Miners can't move without the industry and users; who are they going to sell their coins to? Where did I say that? I dont talk about economic majority because its an derived concept, not entirely relevant to the fork. I understand what you mean by it, but the decision will be made by others. |
|
|
|
[drivel]
Go fuck yourself. Please.  |
|
|
|
There is no consensus in this case. That would cause a network split 3/4 and 1/4. If there is really consensus then 90% seems feasible.
Rubbish. 75% is the desired level. If anyone still wants to make a point when the majority of the network is against them, then so be it. They will lose and it will be their fault. Rational players will play a rational game. |
|
|
|
You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count.
So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting. where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide? You are a complete fruitcake sometimes. |
|
|
|
Segwit gives the same capacity increase as your hard-fork,
Segwit is accounting fraud. It actually has higher bandwidth demand than a simple blocksize bump of equal effect. Your post is linguistic and conceptual fraud. There is nothing "simple" about a contentious hard fork. Segwit is an elegant solution to numerous extant problems, and the opposite of Classic's hacky, kludgey, hamfisted, simpleton approach.  Thats about as intellectual as your arguments get. Nice Core-Troll. |
|
|
|
... let the DDOSing begin now that techignorati who use binaries because they can't build from source are wandering stupidly into the badlands. tally-ho
And that pretty much sums up your scumbag attitude. I bet you have giftcards for sale too, paid for by stolen credit cards. You are a real asset to the core-devs, a like minded fellow traveler. Don't blame the messenger. It's just reality that Bitcoin cannot be DDOSed but Classic can and will be. The antifragile project deserves to live, the wimpy fork does not. Better post here while you still can. I expect your ISP will be nuked from space shortly after you turn on your obnoxious Classic troll node. When you phone in to cry to customer service, be sure to tell them you were running a server on your residential connection, and that server effectively painted a giant target on their back(bone). Scumbag tactics, so you are no better than a scumbag, right? Should we expect anything better from you? Its just an example of the low-lifes that core devs now associate themselves with. How is your plan for removing the need to hold bitcoin to use the Immutable ledger going? Heh, you cant hold the argument, so its dDos... |
|
|
|
Your wrong, it is dangerous if just one pool has veto about change thats why 75%, and Gavin asked relevant Bitcoin services whether 28 days is enought time for them to make necessary changes which he received positive responses.
You are wrong. Why not 70%, since a single miner could veto with 26% hashrate? Why not 50% because more miners could veto the change? That could only happen if there was no consensus obviously. The community support seems majority as well when you consider all the forums, not just btctalk + r/Bitcoin where it might be closer to 50/50 instead
Wrong. There is no indication that the majority support any contentious HF. If there is, I'd like to see some sources (e.g. bitcoinocracy shows one side of the situation). You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count. |
|
|
|
I dont know. It all stinks of corporate sellout
So you're trying to tell me that all the developers that signed the roadmap have been bought, albeit Gavin, Garzik and Toomin haven't? You make that sound like you think it would be ok. They are not the ones with the $76m deal to change bitcoin. didn't PwC say that Blockstream were trying to corner the IP rights to bitcoin? Isnt that what its about?
Never heard of this before. Source? Right on first page: incumbents focus
on protecting their intellectual property as they
explore new collaborative opportunities with
customers Know any other 'incumbants' that are working with PwC? |
|
|
|
Gavin constantly change his proposal based on community feed back
But please, by all means continue. You are welcome to die on the 2MB hill, sacrificing your reputation for Classic just like Hearn and Frap.doc did for XT. And so it goes. You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger Miners will lovve you when their bitcoins are worth shit, because your banking buddies only need to spend satoshis to settle their off-chain transactions. But they wise to you, boy. They wise. |
|
|
|
'Liquid' is a scheme whereby Blockstream (vis-à-vis Maxwell) severely encumbers the blockchain capacity with 1MB blocks - so you will have to buy access to their little private sideschains.
Look at all this propaganda. Once you have some concrete proof of something, we can talk. Liquid is a commercial sidechain that combines Confidential Transactions and several other Elements to provide high-speed transactions between Bitcoin Exchanges.
It has nothing to do with the users, nor is Bitcoin being capped (Step 1. Segwit). I dont know. It all stinks of corporate sellout - didn't PwC say that Blockstream were trying to corner the IP rights to bitcoin? Isnt that what its about? |
|
|
|
Throwing statements about with no explanation does not help your case.
So why dont you explain to me what makes it a Kludge? Also, I tried not insult you so please try and not to insult me. I never said segwit itself was a kludge. (its inelegant at best) If you read back to my original post, I asked you about how making segwit SF-able was a kludge. Maybe answer that question. segwit should be a HF. Making it a SF is political and destroys most of their credibility. Again why is segwit as soft-fork a kludge? because Gavin the FUDster said so? Its a much better to have soft-forks then hard forks and allows capacity to be increased immediately. With hard forks the entire network has to move before anybody gets benefit. Is not the big motivation to increase capacity? How do you feel about the segwit kludge of pushing its commitment into the coinbase tx? You ok with that design approach? What was the motivation for it? Expediency, efficiency or just so that they would not have to sell segwit as an evil HF? |
|
|
|
The current structure of transactions with the signature being part of it but malleable is inelegant and causes many problems.
Wrong. The malleability isnt a big issue in bitcoin now, but will become more serious with the functionality expansion required for LN. Its solving a problem that will be brought about by LN. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
