ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[marcus_of_augustus]

Lightning network is just the first example of what can be done building on P2SH with payment channels.

There are sure to be more innovations using Bitcoin's scripting/contracting emgine that allow for trustless off-chain transacting in other layered solutions, tailored for specific use cases.

The problem right now is the paucity of imagination and talent, made worse by distractions like appeals to get-rich-quick solutions, short-termism, etc.

[1715312100]

1715312100

[1715312100]

1715312100

[1715312100]

1715312100

[Lauda]

Lightning network is just the first example of can be done building on P2SH with payment channels.

The lightning network is a great achievement. It is quite unfortunate that people are bashing it. LN has a theoretically infinite capacity. It is absurdly more efficient than transacting on the main-chain in addition to being both decentralized (it should be) and secure as well. It is currently the only known way for Bitcoin to scale towards mainstream adoption.

The problem right now is the paucity of imagination and talent, made worse by distractions like appeals to get-rich-quick solutions, short-termism, etc.

Indeed. These controversial forks are just disruptions. I'm certain that a lot of time has been wasted (time which could have been used for developing).
Sometimes I get this feeling that these discussions are going in loops. It can get quite tiring at times.

[watashi-kokoto]

Breaking: a major Classic shill realizes the ethreum guys aren't on their team

[Sam Weir]

What are you suggesting? That we should ignore the fact that people like frapdoc and jl777 pulled massive scams on the bitcoin community? If you're suggesting that everyone in the community has done so.... well, I disagree.

JL777 did never scam anyone. He is one of the best devs in crypto. Some recent info on supernet http://coremedia.info/index.php/supernet/item/229-supernet-weekly-no1

The rest of the interwebz seems to disagree with you....

[adamstgBit]

Lightning network is just the first example of can be done building on P2SH with payment channels.

The lightning network is a great achievement. It is quite unfortunate that people are bashing it. LN has a theoretically infinite capacity. It is absurdly more efficient than transacting on the main-chain in addition to being both decentralized (it should be) and secure as well. It is currently the only known way for Bitcoin to scale towards mainstream adoption.

show me the money!
lightning network sounds good, but its not like its widely used and has been peer reviewed for vulnerabilities.
i dont think we should bank on unproven tech.
but ya it sounds very cool.

[illyiller]

but its not like its widely used and has been peer reviewed for vulnerabilities.
i dont think we should bank on unproven tech.
but ya it sounds very cool.

Sounds sorta like ETH. Yet so many XT/Classic supporters are claiming ETH solves bitcoin's problems, including scalability -- "and so we must increase block size to compete with the unproven, highly vulnerable ETH!"

[Lauda]

show me the money!
lightning network sounds good, but its not like its widely used and has been peer reviewed for vulnerabilities.
i dont think we should bank on unproven tech.
but ya it sounds very cool.

This thinking pattern is very wrong. Please stop spreading the toxic mindset. Instead of constanly complaining about everything, you could try helping. There was a period in time where the shills used the "LN is vaporware." tactic which was quickly disproved. LN is in development by various groups and you can't expect it to be reviewed and tested already.

[adamstgBit]

but its not like its widely used and has been peer reviewed for vulnerabilities.
i dont think we should bank on unproven tech.
but ya it sounds very cool.

Sounds sorta like ETH. Yet so many XT/Classic supporters are claiming ETH solves bitcoin's problems, including scalability -- "and so we must increase block size to compete with the unproven, highly vulnerable ETH!"

ETH has been widely used for months now, and its market cap is 1/10^th of bitcoins.
it still remains "unproven" in my view, but day by day its getting more and more "proven"
yes BTC is competing with ETH... and ETH sure as hell won't be the last altcoin to compete with BTC.
the premises that bitcoin would become valueless if its blocks got much bigger is going to be put to the test.
bitcoin will self impose a 1MB limit. other coins won't.

if its true that max-decentralization  is what the market wants then we have nothing to worry about.

[adamstgBit]

show me the money!
lightning network sounds good, but its not like its widely used and has been peer reviewed for vulnerabilities.
i dont think we should bank on unproven tech.
but ya it sounds very cool.

This thinking pattern is very wrong. Please stop spreading the mindset from bad forums/reddit pages. Instead of constanly complaining about everything, you could try helping. There was a period in time where the shills used the "LN is vaporware." tactic which was quickly disproved. LN is in development by various groups and you can't expect it to be reviewed and tested already.

untill LN proves itself.
i think it might be wise to bump the blocklimit just enough to not hurt adoption.
once LN has proven itself, then, sure, be very conservative with future blocklimit incress to make sure max-decentralization is kept.

you spread your mindset and i'll spread mine?? if you really dont want opposing views and discussion on this forum please make it clear that "we" aren't welcome here.

[Lauda]

untill LN proves itself.
i think it might be wise to bump the blocklimit just enough to not hurt adoption.
once LN has proven itself, then, sure, be very conservative with future blocklimit incress to make sure max-decentralization is kept.

This tactic makes no sense:"Let's not be conservative because we want adoption (i.e. because of greed), and let's be conservative later once LN is ready.". Segwit will provide adequate transaction capacity for the network at the moment. It should be fine until sometime in 2017. There is no need to bump the block size limit right now.

you spread your mindset and i'll spread mine?? if you really dont want opposing views and discussion on this forum please make it clear that "we" aren't welcome here.

Spreading a healthy mindset is great, what your "friends" are doing is not.

[Carlton Banks]

please make it clear that "we" aren't welcome here.

Thank you Adam, you're the first Classic/2MB shill who has been polite enough to ask. Please leave.

[Lauda]

Thank you Adam, you're the first Classic/2MB shill who has been polite enough to ask. Please leave.

Carlton, where have you been? Your direct approach was missing in some of these discussions (for a while).
Anyhow, you do make a point. The majority of the users do not like the people supporting controversial hard forks in addition to all of them being moved to the altcoin section. Things would be much more simpler if people like Veritas, Adam, etc. just left. Forums have been created to suit the needs of the people supporting such forks, they might as well use them.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Thank you Adam, you're the first Classic/2MB shill who has been polite enough to ask. Please leave.

Carlton, where have you been? Your direct approach was missing in some of these discussions (for a while).
Anyhow, you do make a point. The majority of the users do not like the people supporting controversial hard forks in addition to all of them being moved to the altcoin section. Things would be much more simpler if people like Veritas, Adam, etc. just left. Forums have been created to suit the needs of the people supporting such forks, they might as well use them.

Ok. Good bye, have fun. I'm sure you will enjoy exciting discussions!

And yes: Things are simpler without people that have another opinion. Glad you realized.

[bargainbin]

Thank you Adam, you're the first Classic/2MB shill who has been polite enough to ask. Please leave.

Carlton, where have you been? Your direct approach was missing in some of these discussions (for a while).
Anyhow, you do make a point. The majority of the users do not like the people supporting controversial hard forks in addition to all of them being moved to the altcoin section. Things would be much more simpler if people like Veritas, Adam, etc. just left. Forums have been created to suit the needs of the people supporting such forks, they might as well use them.

Right on! We never liked him anyhow.

Bitcoin needs to shrink!

[Lauda]

Ok. Good bye, have fun. I'm sure you will enjoy exciting discussions!

And yes: Things are simpler without people that have another opinion. Glad you realized.

The point of differentiating opinions based on technical expertise has long been passed. We are in the age of "I'm right because I think so", shilling, promoting and whatnot. This does not help either side. This isn't about "another opinion" anymore (people who want to have a healthy discussion are very welcome though).

Bitcoin needs to shrink!

Interesting statement.

[HostFat]

Rich people to be rich need that poorers people use and accept the same money, there is no other way around.

[Carlton Banks]

Rich people to be rich need that poorers people use and accept the same money, there is no other way around.

If Bitcoin is for the rich, explain it's popularity in Venezuela or the Russian gov banning it. It's cheaper and more useful than traditional banking now, or nobody would use it for anything.


Get some perspective: Bitcoin has and will grow much faster than any blocksize limit (and those who promoted blocksize-as-a-scaling-solution like Gavin Andresen know this only too well). Adding more blocksize space without improving the efficiency of the space, it's like trying to fight fires with gasoline in the water hose.


This paradigm has maxed out it's growth potential. Time for a new one. Or maybe you could just recommend the old one to us. Again.

[HostFat]

@Carlton Banks
I don't think that bitcoin is for the rich now... but some are pushing on this way buy doing wrong short term choices, to please their investors.

Other clients (unlimited, xt and classic) are working on solutions to scale "on-chain", they are doing it because it is possible and they haven't any conflict of interest on giving these kind of solutions.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitcoin needs to shrink!

... rather, you need a shrink. You're the sickest thing on this whole forum, imho.

[Carlton Banks]

Other clients (unlimited, xt and classic) are working on solutions to scale "on-chain", they are doing it because it is possible and they haven't any conflict of interest on giving these kind of solutions.

It isn't possible to scale something that's already at it's maximum growth. Y'know, all those threads titled "BLOCKS ARE FULL" and so on.

You're part of that group that just wants to keep trying it the old way, but we're moving on from the days of "lets add more wings! And more propellors!". It's turbofan time.



"Move on" is the only option, the only question is which direction you head in. Just do it already, preferably somewhere where repetitive politicking is appreciated (let's be honest, I'm telling you you're going nowhere, as everybody dislikes being told what to think)