So who is behind the name Toomincoin?
And what's this I keep hearing about Blockstream buying Bitcoin for 55 million dollars? Are we supposed to say "Bitcoin TM A Product Of Blockstream Corporation" or "Bitcoin TM Brought to you by [The] Blockstream Corporation"? So many questions... Don't know about that just wondered why Toomincoin turned into the new name for a bitcoin fork. Toomin has the "final call" in Classic. He's trying to replace Bitcoin's existing governance structure and protocol with ones he is in control of. So we call his vanity fork ToominCoin. |
|
|
|
Scaling to high transaction rate has always been my main concern about viability of bitcoin. I'm much more concerned about scalability than government shutdown, for example.
The 'fancy Visa' heresy is older than I thought! Talk about failing to grok the ethos (early and often). So Garzik is a limousine libertarian. No wonder he's so eager to help Olivier Janssens engage in pointless/dangerous vanity forks based on retail payment rail business requirements. |
|
|
|
9/30/10 Re: Prioritized transactions, and tx fees https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1314.msg14750#msg14750That hard limit is going to have to be bumped up if/when Bitcoin takes off. 463 transactions per minute wouldn't be anywhere near viable for a worldwide online currency. We, at least, need to be able to handle the number of average transactions per minute that paypal claims they currently average.
+1 Scaling to high transaction rate has always been my main concern about viability of bitcoin. I'm much more concerned about scalability than government shutdown, for example. |
|
|
|
Stupid question maybe but I missed the reason...
Why is everyone calling bitcoin_classic, Toomincoin ?
Because Toomin has the "final call" like Hearn does with XT. |
|
|
|
Price is more reasonable now. I will resume accumulation, slowly. I continue to believe that coned determines the marginal supply of crypto generally, and the long run on XMR has reinforced that notion all day every day.
con edison? you obscurantist. 80% of americans wouldn't get that reference, let alone this international crowd. Ha ha. I would like to know what he meant. Has anybody figured it out? I presume he is talking about the marginal supply getting less and less everyday. In other words, daily inflation is getting lower everyday, thus lowering available daily supply (marginal supply). Just think about the shape of a cone and how the (daily) supply (and distribution) of a cryptocurrency would fit into that. con edison is a power company, so I guess he means the price of electricity affects how many coins miners must sell (rather than hlod) to pay the bill, thus 'coned determines the marginal supply.' |
|
|
|
-Aren't > 100kb transactions already non-standard? -Why yes they are, blunderer! You're so smart!  Yes, they are.. which means they're available to be used in the future when a need arises. The transactions that are CLTV or P2SH spends used to be non-standard, and now they're frequently used. Prohibiting larger transactions would be a really unfortunate reduction in capability. Some people don't think so, because they believe that Bitcoin is centrally administered and that all users can be forced to upgrade in less than a month should the administration decide to undo that decision. |
|
|
|
Using the 1MB limit to prevent centralization is like mangling your daughter's face to prevent her from being raped. It's an extremely high price to pay and it doesn't even work that well.
Nope, the 1MB limit is more like teaching your daughter to use self-discipline and situational awareness to avoid dangerous situations, and martial arts/marksmanship should an attempt be made. Setting a huge block size and expecting spam tx to just go away is like dressing up in slutwear, blacking out drunk at a ghetto frat party, and hoping for the best. |
|
|
|
And the solution to the quadratic slow transaction?
Core is using segwit to fix the source of extralinear sig_op validation times. And we get the amazing power of tree sigs enabled as a bonus. Classic is using a magic number from Gavin's ass to artificially limit tx size to 100k or something, which he already admitted is a horrible, hacky, future-unfriendly approach. |
|
|
|
A huge amount of development work has been done in Dash.
I really don't know why people insist in trying to compare this two projects, but for whatever reason they do. It is pointless
You built an overpriced (way over budget) soda machine and hired a stripper to stand in front of it. That's sleazy marketing, not "development work." Comparing two products competing to supply the same demand for private e-cash is not "pointless." Evaluation of competitive advantage is how markets work; it's why they exist. But I'm not surprised to find economic illiteracy in Minitaur26, who is Duffield's #1 minion. You obviously wish to create some kind of truce, such as the one Darkcoin and XC had, where we ignore your scam and stop saying fraud when we see fraud. That truce served to perpetuate (aid and abet) the XC scam, which caused dozens or hundreds of people to lose BTC when it died. Why does it still take hours or days to mix Dash? Where is the masternode blinding that was supposed to have been in the latest version, released last summer? Even your most brainwashed cult members are starting to wonder WTF is in the Kool-Aid at the Evan's Gate compound. I want to point few major issues why we are still not in production:
1. there is not a way to sendmanyIX
2. there is not a way to mix coins trough dash-cli
3. there should be a better way to get notification if transaction came trough IX or normal.
Moving the goalposts to the hopelessly ambitious Evolution roadmap of blue-sky unicorn projects does noting to finish the previous tasks. Evolution is an exercise in creative writing and marketecture, not "development work." There are entire, fully funded projects solely working on distributed storage. Then there are entire, fully funded projects working on social networking type applications. Then there are entire, fully funded projects working on API building.
Given that background, any self respecting investor is going to conclude that Dash has bitten off more than it can chew trying to do all this to a high technical standard with only 1 or 2 core developers. They will wonder where the efficiency gain is in development (i.e. what is it that those projects are doing that Dash doesn't need to do).
Comparing zero-sum, conflict-inducing " DASH budget proposals" (which are paid for by fiat Dash made up from nothing) to Monero's open-ended, pay-what-you-want Forum Funding System is an entirely valid exercise. The only reason you seek to discourage such comparisons is because Dash looks terrible when measured by the Monero benchmark. Monero has exposed Dash's snake oil and bad crypto, now it's time for Decred, a professional/fair/honest PoS coin, to finish off your instamined HYIP scam for good. |
|
|
|
But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin
This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why? Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems. Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem. Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap. Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users. The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they? CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business.  CT and segwit are parts of the scaling roadmap. It all works together. Before increasing the size of the blocks, we make sure the blocks are optimal. |
|
|
|
But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin
This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why? Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems. Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem. Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap. |
|
|
|
AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users.
What is there to be upset about?
Welcome to the Bitcoin part of the Internet. COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE THINGS! |
|
|
|
XT = BIP101, not Classic's withered rind of 2MB. You can say the 'get theymos - kill Core' spirit of XT lives on in Classic, but that entails admitting its body is dead.  It's time for sgbett and the other Gavinstas to put on their big boy pants, admit XT failed, and share what they learned from the experience. I'm pretty sure that if Classic fails that we are going to see at least another attempt at a fork (I hope that I'm wrong though). The block size debate is ridiculous and especially people who want Bitcoin to remain a single layer. I wonder what the internet would look like if it was built on a single layer instead of the 7 that we are currently using (if that was possible). We absolutely will see Bitcoin Doubleplusgood or something else after Classic goes away. The Gavinistas' precious governance coup matters more to them than any technological feature or tps improvement. That's why the XT and Unlimited people can agree to Classic's 'smallest, least controversial change possible' thin wedge approach. When Adam Back proposes 2MB, it's " absurdly small." When Classic does the exact same thing, the Gavinistas clap for joy. The Gavinista movement is purely political. They use the technological jibber jabber to impress the useful idiots at Reddit that bought in at $500-$1000 and desperately hope doubling the tps will double the price. |
|
|
|
Many people are more interested in bitcoin-the-blockchain-technology than Bitcoin-the-first-crypto-currency.
I'm sorry, but I have no way of interpreting that statement that doesn't involve you being an idiot. There is no such thing as bitcoin-the-blockchain. The fact that you can even begin to conceive that this may be a thing makes me very certain that you are shit out of arguments in this debate. Blockchain - anyone can create: can use it to support currency, dns, registries, etc. Bitcoin - is a digital currency that employs blockchain rules. Trying to paint bitcoin as some tech-for-hire is a new low - even for you. Bitcoin's blockchain exists. You may download it here. 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 (ie, it's tech for hire). Soon we will have Layer 2 things built on the blockchain's Layer 1, like sidechains and payment channels, which abstract, standardize, and (hopefully) commodify/commercialize/professionalize those processes. Accounting firms like PwC are very excited to use bitcoin-the-blockchain's technology and infrastructure to do their jobs better, but crypto-currency speculation is beyond their remit. |
|
|
|
Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin. Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it. Bitcoinocracy is immune to Sybil attack, because you must prove ownership of BTC to participate. Consider.it is so open to Sybil attack it might as well be a honeypot. The former is signal, the latter is noise. You're just butthurt the deep pockets support continued consensus more than contentious hard forking. If Bitcoinocracy was in favor of Gavinista governance coups and contentious hard forks, you'd never shut up about what the "community" wants/demands/deserves. |
|
|
|
Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.
[blah blah blah]
Altcoin discussion is off-topic here. Do you want me to bore you with the details of how my dCred test node is doing? Or how great the latest Monero release is at minimizing RAM use to ~100MB? |
|
|
|
Monero is meant to be used, not bought and held to be sold for a higher price. If you want to support Monero, all the work that is being done, then use it. Spend it on things. Then if you enjoy the privacy that comes with it, buy back the coins you spent.
Why not both? People who hlod keep the price up, which gives more economic power to spenders and creates an incentive for merchant acceptance. But yes, it's time for Monero's 'alpaca socks' phase where we demonstrate its utility as a p2p payment medium. I'll be making a 'Monero Comic and Coin' thread selling collectibles. Watch for it Soon TM.  |
|
|
|
Interesting thread. We might be able to achieve a kind of "conductive wire" of ideas with this chronological ordering of threads about block size and related issues. It will be interesting when this is all over to go back and see how people's minds and ideas developed throughout this "Great Schism", as OP calls it  I'd like to contribute: this was one of my favorite threads. 8/15/15 Big block support observer https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153957.0Added to OP. TYVM! |
|
|
|
[blah blah blah]
[blah blah blah]
[blah blah blah]
This thread is for compiling a list of references that helps people interested in the history of Bitcoin's Great Schism. Editorializing is off-topic.Please cite a thread that exemplifies what you're talking about OR DO NOT POST. Thank you, The Managment |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
