people not upgrading would not want their coin transvestites by whatever some random dev manages to push down the Protocol's throat.
"Some random dev" doesn't have commit access, just to name the first problem with your false characterization that comes to mind. "Some random dev" isn't an accurate way to describe the widespread, albeit not universal nor harmonious, consensus behind segwit. Do you have a better plan to fix tx malleability and accrue the other benefits segwit brings to the table? Besides the excruciatingly nuanced 'better as a hard fork' critique, I've yet to hear a good reason to eschew segwit, much less a plausible way to prevent other people from using that soft fork. Ranting about transvestites and vague threats involving gold purity metaphors won't cut it. You know you can't force unwilling miners to keep tx and sigs desegregated (and malleable), right? |
|
|
|
Maybe, maybe not. Frap.doc has taken my advice to bring in heavy hitting lawyers of his own, rather than his initial plan to represent himself against the Chicago Boys' local lackeys. If Dr. Frappe loses, I can't wait to find out how the judge justifies retroactively taking his sales commission based on events (ie bankruptcy and BTC price increases) that happened months after his tangential involvement ended. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the contribution. Sidebar: you may have noticed I left out BTC Unlimited. This is because it's – let me be politically correct – "learning disabled."  I was just remarking on how Unlimiturd didn't even warrant a #R3KT thread to mark its death from suffocation under 10,000 coats of paint. |
|
|
|
What's to stop the Classic team from implementing segwit? AFAIK the coding is mostly complete, and publicly available.
The Classic team depends on their brainwashed superstitious cargo cult for support. That cult's totem and taboo structure worships larger blocks and despises any innovation supported by Core. Classic won't even allow its users the option to enable RBF ("Because Controversial"). They only accepted CLTV because somebody called it OP_HODL and the anti-Todd lynch mob subsequently threatened to turn against them, for withholding a suddenly popular feature. There's no way the Gavinistas will admit segwit is a good idea, precisely because it was proposed by Evil Blockstream People. The other side thinks SegWit is a gross kludge of code. If they just copy it, what was the point of all this? What was the point?!?
quod erat demonstrandum |
|
|
|
So. Fekkin. Rekt. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012412.html[bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes
Samson Mow samson.mow at btcc.com
Tue Feb 9 05:11:56 UTC 2016
Gavin, please don't quote that list on the Classic website. It's horribly
inaccurate and misleading to the general public.
> That testing is happening by the exchange, library, wallet, etc providers
> themselves. There is a list on the Classic home page:
>
> https://bitcoinclassic.com/
I know for a fact that most companies you list there have no intention to
run Classic, much less test it. You should not mix support for 2MB with
support for Classic, or if people say they welcome a fork, to mean they
support Classic. |
|
|
|
Yes, the price was pumped all the way up to 017 and has now been dumped all the way down to 011.
Does anyone else see the pattern, where some shiny new feature (EG Evolution) is used to hype the price, then the insiders cash out more instamined coins?
Perhaps you should've bought some @0055 and sold @017 if you are able to see "patterns". Or do you hate money? No thanks, I'm very happy with my BTC, XMR, XPM, XCN, VIA, and dCred. Those are fairly launched and marketed coins, unlike DASH's instamined HYIP scam. Enjoy your dirty shitcoin pump-and-dump money while you can. dCred is eating Dash's PoS lunch, if you haven't noticed... |
|
|
|
The Federal Reserve may not have the legal authority to set negative interest rates in the U.S., according to a 2010 staff memo that was posted late last month on the central bank’s website.
The document, which is dated Aug. 5, 2010, and was publicly released on Jan. 29, suggests the law that authorized the Fed to pay interest on excess reserves, or IOER, may not grant it the authority to charge interest. That could constrain the central bank’s ability to take interest rates below zero, though it might be able to find a work-around.
Speculation has increased that the Fed might consider negative rates in the next economic downturn as concerns of a U.S. slowdown have mounted. This also follows recent moves to cut borrowing costs below zero by central banks in Europe and Japan that show it can be done. The opinion of Fed staff back in 2010 was that this would difficult under U.S. law. |
|
|
|
There was talks about this on the Dedred forum. The last I heard was that they plan to keep the ticker as it is. If this is a serious effort, the ticker needs to follow the accepted ISO format for currency codes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217#X_currenciesThat's why Monero changed from MRO to XMR. Use XDC, or you are just playing on shitcoin markets (and necromancing Deltacredit volume). |
|
|
|
Ok, everything working fine now. It took less yelling and cussing to setup than most other coins.  Don't believe the FUD, dCred is solid. Now please change the ticker to XDC... |
|
|
|
That's why I say, only if that is the change.
Frankly I don't understand why it would need many coders or time to change a line of code from 1mb to 2mb. I can do it quickly, just give me an hour, grep and vi.
I don't want to support a hard fork that does anything but the block size change. Throwing in last minute changes along with it is similar to politicians throwing in their shitty little laws here and there with major laws that everyone supports.
There are indeed more changes to Classic than you are implying... There necessarily has to be because simply changing maxBlockSize from 1,000,000 bytes to 2,000,000 bytes would be dangerously irresponsible and introduce new attack vectors. Here is a list of the changes done - https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/92e1efd0493c1cbde47304c9711f13f413cc9099/bip-bump2mb.mediawikiWhat I find most deplorable about these changes is the 75% threshold and extremely small 28 day window which goes against the miners wishes of 90% . Even Bitmain's CEO believes this is too small. Softforks require 95% mining consensus for goodness sake and they want to push through a contentious hardfork at 75%.... This is essentially a political coup. Good points. Sure, Classic is "just a simple 2MB patch." And some new sigop-bothering cruft. And a contentious hard fork, done at "75%" (variance notwithstanding) with one month for everyone to upgrade. And a political coup. It's very simple. As long as you ignore the new 20k/block sigop limit, the optimally dangerous hard fork, and the core-dev-alienating governance coup. These Gavinistas are either fucking idiots, fucking liars, or both. |
|
|
|
...
Segwit and classic have practically similar 0-0.25MB difference capacity differences , with segwit allowing for better longterm scaling by fixing tx malleability(something that is required for payment channels to progress) .
Logically, supporting Classic doesn't make much sense.
TL;DR: Classic takes an existing kludge (1MB limit) and changes it to 2MB. No complexity added. Core keeps the existing kludge (1MB limit), and *adds another, horrendously convoluted kludge, just to keep the *other* kludge*. In technical circles, this sort of thing is called "fucking retarded," "a patch on a patch." The 1MB limit is a sanity check to prevent DOS attacks, not a kludge. It is also a serendipitous supply demarcation line useful for establishing fee markets. Glomming yet another poorly designed MB onto the existing one, in lieu of segwit, for a tiny tps increase, is a kludge. You also failed to disclose complexity is added to Classic because of the 2MB limit, in the form of Gavin's ill-considered new tx/sigop tracking/limiting patch(es). https://github.com/jtoomim/bitcoin/commit/f259595c5abd2e59da6ac515f9d30953dbf21d06"No complexity added?" You are an idiot, a liar, or both. |
|
|
|
Frankly I don't understand why it would need many coders or time to change a line of code from 1mb to 2mb. I can do it quickly, just give me an hour, grep and vi.
I don't want to support a hard fork that does anything but the block size change. Throwing in last minute changes along with it is similar to politicians throwing in their shitty little laws here and there with major laws that everyone supports.
Frankly, there's a lot of things you don't understand. You may know how to change a variable and recompile (such wow), but the logic and mechanics of policy debate and legislation are beyond your ken. EG, you complain about "politics" but fail to understand why inclusion of as many items as possible from the Hardfork Wishlist is key to gaining a critical mass of support and thereby overcoming contention. Clinging to your 'smallest change possible' annointed vision for elective hard forks (palliative/curative emergency measures notwithstanding) only demonstrates your desire to effect a coup d'état using the technological thin wedge of a popular greatest-common-denominator feature against Core. |
|
|
|
Classic is just Core with at 2mb block size limit and a governance coup that will alienate our best devs.
FTFY. And don't forget 2mb blocks + segwit hurts decentralization (because of bandwidth/storage constraints). Your post failed to mention segwit. Why is that? Are you unaware segwit exists, is being tested, and approximates the tps increase of 100% block size increase? Or are you lying by omission? |
|
|
|
Unfortunately classic is not quite dead yet.
When it is and the threat of chaotic, contentious and unnecessary (segwit is superior) hard fork is over, we can all look forward to a massive price increase (like move from 230->450 after xt collapse) and bitcoin moving forward.
These bombing runs from Gavin and coinbase are getting tiring.
I doubt they will be able to centralise bitcoin development under their control.
Lighten up Francis! Bitcoin's antifragility only grows stronger when presented with adversity. And the stampeding herds of noisy Gavinista Lolcows are more comedy than adversity. Coinbase and Gavin@TLA.MIT.GOV have now spent over a year bloviating about Capacity Crunches, Hard Landings, etc. Result? Honey Badger just don't care. |
|
|
|
XPOST, in case the first one gets moderated Because Reasons other than being completely on-topic for the DASH [ANN]. An investor in another coin who started asking all kinds of troll-fed questions to Evan about insta-mining and how terrible our anonymity is. He showed up as a detractor to the project and left about 45 minutes later as an enthusiastic promoter of what we are doing... "I'm going to tell my friends about you guys. Thank you for taking the time to walk me through everything. I guess those [other coin] guys are a little bit zealots." Thanks for the write-up! I'm glad you had a good time.  What did you say to convince "troll-fed investor" that sudden, accidental insta-mining is a tolerable or desirable feature for a cryptocurrency? How did you meet the burden of proof to demonstrate Dash's anonymity isn't "terrible" (the default assumption)? What qualified him as in "investor?" Was he attending because Evan dba The Darkcoin Foundation Inc. was selling an investment product? Was anyone else giving investment advice? Conference was a success just look at how many new fools they got to buy in all the way to 017. Now they are #REKT Yes, the price was pumped all the way up to 017 and has now been dumped all the way down to 011. Does anyone else see the pattern, where some shiny new feature (EG Evolution) is used to hype the price, then the insiders cash out more instamined coins? |
|
|
|
Some random reddit users from outside the general cryptocurrency world are stumbling onto the monero reddit and becoming interested in crypto. Pretty cool. Reddit user growth seems to be accelerating.
Outside is leaking?!  Yeah, it seems the outside is leaking in. God damn it. Mom better put a better seal on the basement bulkhead, so that crap leaves me the hell alone!  |
|
|
|
As Smooth said, such a system can still have value. You don't have to be a perfect system, just better or competitive with the others. Not hard to do when your competition is a Federal Reserve enslavement scheme. It's like asking a prisoner would you rather be tortured with a chainsaw or be given a cell phone with bad reception.
If we are talking Sprint-bad reception, I'll take the chainsaw plx.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
