ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[VeritasSapere]

Surely you do not favor keeping development centralized under Core forever? If that was the case I would personally not consider Bitcoin to have much of a future at all, decentralization requires us to distribute this power just like Bitcoin has done for many other things.

Here is what I see (as a software developer) - things like "libconsensus" are being developed to make it actually easier for other projects to do Bitcoin (and do it properly).

Now if the "core devs" were so hell bent on total control then why would they develop that in particular (and that is only one example - but I think the best example of why you have got things very wrong in your understanding)?

Maybe you aren't a coder so you simply "don't understand" but why not listen to people that do know this stuff rather than just joining in what has basically become a mob attack of the core developers?

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

[1713556249]

1713556249

[1713556249]

1713556249

[1713556249]

1713556249

[1713556249]

1713556249

[CIYAM]

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

[VeritasSapere]

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

That is just baseless fear mongering, like I said we have more then five alternative implementations to Core today and yet the network fuctions just fine. A hundred different implementations like you suggest would also not be a problem, nobody would adopt such implementations, even though there is nothing that can be done to stop someone from creating them either, it really is not a problem.

If hypothetically the majority of the network decided to support classic and the network forked to two megabytes blocks, this would also not be a problem, the network would continue to function as it should. There is no reason to fear the freedom of choice, instead this freedom of choice should be embraced.

[CIYAM]

If hypothetically the majority of the network decided to support classic and the network forked to two megabytes blocks, this would also not be a problem, the network would continue to function as it should. There is no reason to fear the freedom of choice, instead this freedom should be embraced.

Strange - that someone who just said a few posts ago that he supports Unlimited is now promoting Classic (as I knew all along).

Easy to catch people who aren't really very clever - isn't it?

(@VeritasSapere R3KT by CIYAM and you're all very welcome)

[VeritasSapere]

If hypothetically the majority of the network decided to support classic and the network forked to two megabytes blocks, this would also not be a problem, the network would continue to function as it should. There is no reason to fear the freedom of choice, instead this freedom should be embraced.

Strange - that someone who just said a few posts ago that he supports Unlimited is now promoting Classic (as I knew all along).

Easy to catch people who aren't really very clever - isn't it?

(@VeritasSapere R3KT by CIYAM)

I support both Classic and Unlimited, they are actually compatible with each other unlike Core. Bitcoin Unlimited is my preferred implementation. Though I can see how with your mentality it would have to be either one or the other. The truth is competing alternative implementations can cooperate and function over the same network.

[CIYAM]

The truth is competing implementations can cooperate and function over the same network.

Don't try and say what the "truth" is when you seemingly completely unaware of it. Without consensus you do not have a "network" so your statement is just rubbish.

My guess is that you are a paid shill for Classic (the Unlimited crap is just something you're adding in to try and make yourself look less like a shill).

[VeritasSapere]

The truth is competing implementations can cooperate and function over the same network.

Don't try and say what the "truth" is when you seeming are completely unaware of it. Without consensus you do not have a "network" so your statement is just rubbish.

In the post I linked before I described "consensus" as being the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which necessarily needs to include several implementations in order to maintain the freedom of choice. Today we do have multiple competing implementations running over the network, so for you to say that this is impossible is "rubbish" since the reality of today serves as a counter factual to your claims.

After all if the majority chose to adopt classic in order to increase the blocksize, two megabytes blocks would become part of the new consensus. This is how the network can change regardless of what a relatively small group of people within Core thinks. If they are smart they would just increase the blocksize in their code as well in order to stay compatible, otherwise they will be free to fork off the network creating their own chain by going against the majority. Though of course you could still run a simple blocksize increase patch over Core to make it compatible with the network again.

This is the governance mechanism of Bitcoin whether you like it or not. I like this mechanism because it maximizes freedom and self determination, and it ensures against the centralization of power of any development team.

[CIYAM]

After all if the majority chose to adopt classic in order to increase the blocksize, two megabytes blocks would become part of the new consensus.

Yup - a "classic puppet" if ever there was one.

Don't try and pretend to be anything other than the shill that you are.

And don't expect that anyone with a brain is going to pay attention to your nonsense posts.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

Sure you can do. I think bitcoin will survive it. If bitcoin needed a social contract that we don't write some kind of software, it would be already dead. Bitcoin is about throwing the need for trust away. If I had to trust that you don't build a consens-breaking clone I would instantly sell my bitcoins and buy paypal-coins.

[hdbuck]

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

Sure you can do. I think bitcoin will survive it. If bitcoin needed a social contract that we don't write some kind of software, it would be already dead. Bitcoin is about throwing the need for trust away. If I had to trust that you don't build a consens-breaking clone I would instantly sell my bitcoins and buy paypal-coins.

what ya waiting for?! bitcoin is dead!

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

Sure you can do. I think bitcoin will survive it. If bitcoin needed a social contract that we don't write some kind of software, it would be already dead. Bitcoin is about throwing the need for trust away. If I had to trust that you don't build a consens-breaking clone I would instantly sell my bitcoins and buy paypal-coins.

what ya waiting for?! bitcoin is dead!

No, it's alive, because it needs no social contract that prohibits that people write and promote software.

[thejaytiesto]

Veritas wants increased adoption so he can get rich quick.

Veritas is a miner, a merchant, a user, and political philosopher.

Veritas hates people using other cryptocurrencies. (no mass adoptions = no get rich quick = bad)

Veritas wants unlimited max block size. (free transactions = mass adoptions = get rich quick = good)

Veritas wants much governance.

Veritas wants hardfork.

Veritas shouts ad hominem often.

Veritas is a very intelligent and capable person.

1 Veritas > 10 noob shills

Thanks I guess, though some corrections, I do support the alternative cryptocurrencies especially considering that they are implementing Satoshi's vision when Bitcoin might not.

I do not think transactions should be free, there should be a free market for fees, the miners know their own parameters best they can decide what transactions to include and not to include.

Bitcoin is not just about getting rich, it is about doing good for the world, it is nice how the incentives of Bitcoin allign these two things, it is part of the beauty and power of Bitcoin.

Increasing the blocksize to centralize the network nodes is the opposite of doing good for the world. We have data that proves increasing the blocksize is a stupid idea now that we have SegWit, and it's simply stupid after LN. On-chain transactions are a waste of resources, every transaction should be through LN, which is as safe and decentralized as on-chain in practical terms.

Once LN kicks in everyone will use LN and few will care to use on-chain, because LN transaction is still a real bitcoin transaction, it just gets wrapped up with other transactions then when it's worth sending into the blockchain it goes there.

Resources are limited, please understand this you delusional big blockers.

[cypherdoc]

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

that's already been done:  altcoins.

so far, that hasn't hurt Bitcoin one bit.  unless of course, we persist on this lunatic path of preventing HF's to lift the blocksize limit.

[hdbuck]

I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

that's already been done:  altcoins.

so far, that hasn't hurt Bitcoin one bit.  unless of course, we persist on this lunatic path of preventing HF's to lift the blocksize limit.

lol, all altcoins are bitcoin forks....

anway, how's your trial going on?

scammers are the ones that hurt bitcoin - temporarily - at least until justice^TM is served...

[bargainbin]

...
Once LN kicks in everyone will use LN and few will care to use on-chain, because LN transaction is still a real bitcoin transaction ...

...until it isn't.
US$ transactions were once gold transactions, but once US$ kicked in, everyone started using US$ and few cared when US$ got decoupled from gold.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Increasing the blocksize to centralize the network nodes is the opposite of doing good for the world. We have data that proves increasing the blocksize is a stupid idea now that we have SegWit, and it's simply stupid after LN. On-chain transactions are a waste of resources, every transaction should be through LN, which is as safe and decentralized as on-chain in practical terms.

Once LN kicks in everyone will use LN and few will care to use on-chain, because LN transaction is still a real bitcoin transaction, it just gets wrapped up with other transactions then when it's worth sending into the blockchain it goes there.

Resources are limited, please understand this you delusional big blockers.

Yeah. I wonder how anybody thought bitcoin was a good idea in the first place.

[johnyj]

What prevents most of the miners reject such a block? Nothing. You took have an hour to verify this block, only to find out that the main chain already extended by 3 blocks and this block is orphaned, what is the point?

So as a new user joining the system, I'm not allowed to mine the blocks that I want (within the block size limit)? Don't you see how idiotic this is?

If you are a new user, you won't be able to mine any block in any meaningful time, so your only choice is to connect to any of the mining pools, and this is already the case today, mining has been separated from the full nodes client since years ago. You need some extra knowledge to setup mining pools, all the mining pools today have certain degree of customization of their code and they understand the block size limit issue much better than average people on this forum. They have overwhelming support for BIP100 since that gives them the right to decide the block size limit based on their calculation

Even if you are a new mining farm with enough R&D resources, you won't be able to construct 100MB block since there is usually only 1MB transaction every 10 minutes, maybe 5MB during peak. Unless you are an attacker intentionally construct huge blocks with lots of spamming transactions, you won't be able to construct a large block. But in that case the rest of the miners are rejecting such attacking blocks

[VeritasSapere]

Yeah it is pretty simple really. A crippled Bitcoin can not compete with alternative cryptocurrencies that can scale their blockchains directly, in regards to thinking LN is the solution to all problems, it most definitely is not especially considering that there are not even any decentralized solutions to routing between the different hubs, which will therefore lead to increased centralization in the form of this hub and spoke model.

You might think that adding all of this complexion and cost in the user experience is a good thing, but it most certainly is not. Nothing beats just being able to transact directly on a blockchain to transfer value between peers. Turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for the lighting network would just be recreating part of the current financial system, becoming what Bitcoin was meant to counter in the first place.

We just need to increase the blocksize to keep up with demand, two megabyte blocks does not centralize the network like you claim, in my opinion having to rely on third parties to transact represents a much greater threat of centralization compared to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

On chain transactions where always how Bitcoin was meant to operate, I am not against off chain solutions, I am just against crippling the Bitcoin network in order to "force" everyone to use off chain solutions. Even when Satoshi was still around people criticized this aspect, many engineers and computer scientists thought that this idea of all transactions being recorded on a shared ledger to be ridiculous. But that is what Bitcoin is, I understand that many people do not believe in this vision, it is clear that Core has diverged from this original vision. But I do still believe in it, and I would like to see the experiment be continued. If anything it should be the people that do not believe in this original vision that should move to alternative currencies instead of trying to change Bitcoin to conform to this alternative vision.

Fundamentally I believe technological growth will keep up with adoption, and even if it does not we should still scale Bitcoin as much as technology allows, nobody can predict the future, who are you to say that this will definitely not work, it depends on the relative rate of adoption and technological growth, both being unknowns. I think many here are guilty of the engineers nirvana fallacy. Which is that if Bitcoin can not scale to VISA levels today we should not scale Bitcoin directly at all, I believe this is deeply flawed.

[CIYAM]

We just need to increase the blocksize to keep up with demand, two megabyte blocks does not centralize the network like you claim, in my opinion having to rely on third parties to transact represents a much greater threat of centralization compared to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

Again - the guy who says he is not a "Classic Shill" just shows that he is.

[VeritasSapere]

We just need to increase the blocksize to keep up with demand, two megabyte blocks does not centralize the network like you claim, in my opinion having to rely on third parties to transact represents a much greater threat of centralization compared to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

Again - the guy who says he is not a "Classic Shill" just shows that he is.

I suppose Satoshi must have been a "Classic Shill" as well then, since he was most certainly also what you would call a big blockist.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306