ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[HostFat]

@Carlton Banks
I don't think that you are really interesting on the debate, you are probably just trolling or don't know on what you are talking about.
There are some users that are already on my ignore list, many that I've found on this thread, you are now the next one.

[1715502577]

1715502577

[1715502577]

1715502577

[1715502577]

1715502577

[1715502577]

1715502577

[iCEBREAKER]

Like herpes, Hearn is the gift that keeps on giving.

IOW, he hasn't stopped whining about his rage-quit.

Bitcoin's problem is not a lack of a leader, it's problem is that the leader is Gregory Maxwell at Blockstream and he's a terrible decision maker.   

Blockstream is the source of the refusal to bump the block size.   

Indeed, the block size debate did not stalemate. It resulted in the small blockists winning, due to the much more aggressive tactics they used   

OK Mikey, tell us all about how Core's roadmap is "much more aggressive" than XT/Classic's governance coup and contentious hardfork at ~75% ...   

[marcus_of_augustus]

Like herpes, Hearn is the gift that keeps on giving.

IOW, he hasn't stopped whining about his rage-quit.

Bitcoin's problem is not a lack of a leader, it's problem is that the leader is Gregory Maxwell at Blockstream and he's a terrible decision maker.   

Blockstream is the source of the refusal to bump the block size.   

Indeed, the block size debate did not stalemate. It resulted in the small blockists winning, due to the much more aggressive tactics they used   

OK Mikey, tell us all about how Core's roadmap is "much more aggressive" than XT/Classic's governance coup and contentious hardfork at ~75% ...   

Him and Swanson must have run out of things to BS each other about at R3CEV ... they are like out best weapon against the banks, dump your dross coders and 'thought leaders' into a "bankcoin' blockchain fintech project and demand outrageous salaries.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Personally, I believe that it would not be a good business practice to either encourage people to use other forums or to allow members to promote other forums within your forum.... even though surely we know that other bitcoin forums do exist.

[adamstgBit]

will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?

[adamstgBit]

Please leave.

no.

[marcus_of_augustus]

will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?

nobody wants to central plan some grand design of how this will all look, it should just evolve with free market solutions 

[adamstgBit]

will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?

nobody wants to central plan some grand design of how this will all look, it should just evolve with free market solutions  

are second layer payments free? i mean say i want to use Lighting Network to buy a coffee what kind of fees can i expect?

are we expected to open a channel buy a million coffees and then close it?

[exstasie]

will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?

Why wouldn't they? What asset do you think we're talking about, exactly?

will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?

Some links were recently posted, where various wallet developers and library maintainers stated that implementing Segwit was not a big deal at all. And I'm not talking about nobodies like "Iguana." I'm talking about Mycelium, Electrum, Breadwallet, GreenAddress, Blocktrail, Libbtc, BitcoinJS etc.

But you keep on repeating this same tired line.

was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?

The point was to implement necessary changes while allowing for some more throughput (kicking the can), to give time to develop IBLTs, weak blocks, LN... Payment channels are crucial. Satoshi saw that. The point is to scale (optimize).

Please stop clamoring for endless bloat and recognize that decentralization is the only thing that gives bitcoin any value whatsoever.

And nobody should give a shit about Bitpay or Coinbase. Their current business model--thus VC/shareholders--depend on cheap/free bitcoin transactions. So the fuck what? They can optimize their business plan or be brushed into the dustbin, like every other shit company that goes bankrupt. I certainly don't allow some corporation's shareholder interest to dictate my interests as a bitcoin user and node operator. Classic supporters say Blockstream controls Core--the answer is Coinbase controlling Classic? No thanks. Still waiting on any evidence that says Blockstream controls a goddamn thing.

Remember how Bitpay lost 5,000 BTC/$1.8m in a security lapse? Yeah, not interested in careless fucks like this having any say over the protocol.

[marcus_of_augustus]

will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?

nobody wants to central plan some grand design of how this will all look, it should just evolve with free market solutions  

are second layer payments free? i mean say i want to use Lighting Network to buy a coffee what kind of fees can i expect?

I expect they will be quite minimal as the computational resources required for a Lightning transaction are orders of magnitude less than an on-blockchain transaction. Take a look at the current electrum server-client system (all volunteer servers) to get an idea of what it might look like in terms of computational costs. The free market will drive LN transactions fees down to marginally more than their computational costs which are small as I said. Internet of Things apps should be able to utilise LN (or payment channels) for negotiations and very small trades for fractions of resource swaps, etc.

[adamstgBit]

will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?

Why wouldn't they? What asset do you think we're talking about, exactly?

will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?

Some links were recently posted, where various wallet developers and library maintainers stated that implementing Segwit was not a big deal at all. And I'm not talking about nobodies like "Iguana." I'm talking about Mycelium, Electrum, Breadwallet, GreenAddress, Blocktrail, Libbtc, BitcoinJS etc.

But you keep on repeating this same tired line.

was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?

The point was to implement necessary changes while allowing for some more throughput (kicking the can), to give time to develop IBLTs, weak blocks, LN... Payment channels are crucial. **Satoshi saw that. The point is to scale (optimize).

Please stop clamoring for endless bloat and recognize that decentralization is the only thing that gives bitcoin any value whatsoever.

And nobody should give a shit about Bitpay or Coinbase. Their current business model--thus VC/shareholders--depend on cheap/free bitcoin transactions. So the fuck what? They can optimize their business plan or be brushed into the dustbin, like every other shit company that goes bankrupt. I certainly don't allow some corporation's shareholder interest to dictate my interests as a bitcoin user and node operator. Classic supporters say Blockstream controls Core--the answer is Coinbase controlling Classic? No thanks. Still waiting on any evidence that says Blockstream controls a goddamn thing.

Remember how Bitpay lost 5,000 BTC/$1.8m in a security lapse? Yeah, not interested in careless fucks like this having any say over the protocol.

**side note i'd love to see a link which back up your statement " Payment channels are crucial. Satoshi saw that "

see thats what i'm talking about

so you agree that making second layer the primary scaling solution will require an overhaul on almost all bitcoin businesses that process bitcoin payments for whatever reason. your answer to that is "tough shit", fair enough...

decentralization gives bitcoin value, but its not the only thing that give it value
clearly altcoins are nowhere near as decentralized as bitcoin yet they command a market price none the less.
i'm not sold on the idea that every single user needs to run a full node for bitcoin to be considered decentralized.

[adamstgBit]

will bitpay accept TX form the second layer?
will we need to rebuild out all the infrastructure we've built thus far?
was segwit's effective block incress ment to will give businesses a few more months worth of block space to give them time to adapt to the second layer?

nobody wants to central plan some grand design of how this will all look, it should just evolve with free market solutions  

are second layer payments free? i mean say i want to use Lighting Network to buy a coffee what kind of fees can i expect?

I expect they will be quite minimal as the computational resources required for a Lightning transaction are orders of magnitude less than an on-blockchain transaction. Take a look at the current electrum server-client system (all volunteer servers) to get an idea of what it might look like in terms of computational costs. The free market will drive LN transactions fees down to marginally more than their computational costs which are small as I said. Internet of Things apps should be able to utilise LN (or payment channels) for negotiations and very small trades for fractions of resource swaps, etc.

well opening and closing the channel requires a ( larger than normal ) Blockchain TX so unless you're going to reuse the channel 100's of times, the cost/TX on LN will not be many orders of magnitude less.

I can't wait to try LN ( i'll need a nice simple User Interface ) myself, it sounds cool, but I feel uneasy about banking bitcoins future on somthing i haven't tried yet. what if its not at all user friendly, do you care about this?

[exstasie]

**side note i'd love to see a link which back up your statement "Payment channels are crucial. Satoshi saw that"

Here is gmaxwell talking about it. I'm too lazy to dig into the mailing lists:

In my vision of lightning there isn't much in the way of hubs, but a mesh of users. If I wanted to build a hub I'd build a chaumanian cash bank. Payment channels were originally proposed by Bitcoin's creator, and the Bitcoin transaction format has specific affordances to support them (e.g. sequence numbers).

The seeds of achieving truly great capacity without compromising the differentiating values of Bitcoin, our removing our arguments for security without collusion in the long term were sewn in the very first versions of the software-- support for payment channels are just one example.

The reason for this is that if Bitcoin is secure and trustworthy, trustless decenteralized micropayment facilities can be built on top of it and extend Bitcoin's transaction security with arbritary speed or scale.  But if the system is fragle and underminable by attackers (government or otherwise) then it won't be robust enough to underpin these things.

(and things like micropayment channels were't my invention, they were recommended by the system's creator-- thats part of why Bitcoin has smart contracts to begin with.)

so you agree that making second layer the primary scaling solution will require an overhaul on almost all bitcoin businesses that process bitcoin payments for whatever reason.

That's not clear. I'm not sure what implications LN would have for wallet/library/merchant/exchange developers. Given that it was coded into the original software (albeit with vulnerabilities), perhaps not all that much.

your answer to that is "tough shit", fair enough...

Well, businesses adapt. That's the nature of business--adapt or die. No reason to coddle outfits like Bitpay. Like Gavin, they may have helped out in bitcoin's infancy, but we shouldn't relegate bitcoin to their limited ideas and abilities. Their plan is "we don't need to scale; we can just add load to the system forever." That's unacceptable for anyone that values decentralization, let alone engineering/programming principles in general.

decentralization gives bitcoin value, but its not the only thing that give it value

Other things may give it value, but without decentralization it is completely worthless. There can be no value proposition if a few have the power to change the rules of the system, censor transactions, etc.

clearly altcoins are nowhere near as decentralized as bitcoin yet they command a market price none the less.

Sure, and we can start a market for bags of shit if anyone's willing to buy.

Hype cycles are not particular to bitcoin, so don't be surprised when some alts get hyped. A few of them may even gain some traction--give it some years. Recall the 2011 "bubble" and the long painful period that followed. Everything goes through cycles, and after the hype cycle comes, well, pain. And silence. If investors in alts like ETH are lucky, it will emerge from such a phase into another hype cycle...and eventually have the opportunity at growing pains like bitcoin is experiencing. All in time.

i'm not sold on the idea that every single user needs to run a full node for bitcoin to be considered decentralized.

Every user need not run a node. I think the best security tradeoff we can make re increased throughput is a system of both fully and partially validating nodes (the latter which contribute strictly within their limitations)...with emphasis on increased security for SPV nodes. Fraud proofs that Segwit will enable will contribute to that.

If we don't leave any consideration for the ability to run a node....then who have we to blame when we're left trusting the network to only a few entities? Bitcoin was meant to dethrone the central bankers, not annoint new ones.

[Lauda]

Personally, I believe that it would not be a good business practice to either encourage people to use other forums or to allow members to promote other forums within your forum.... even though surely we know that other bitcoin forums do exist.

Technically, yes. However, if you've spent a lot of time in threads related to contentious HF's, you would see that some are constantly trying to manipulate others in addition to discussions just kind-of looping.

well opening and closing the channel requires a ( larger than normal ) Blockchain TX so unless you're going to reuse the channel 100's of times, the cost/TX on LN will not be many orders of magnitude less.

The point is to use it multiple time. Opening a channel, creating a single TX and closing it is redundant.

are second layer payments free? i mean say i want to use Lighting Network to buy a coffee what kind of fees can i expect?

They aren't free, but they should be cheaper. We can't really tell you the exact fees at this point in time as we could end up giving you information that is completely false (unintentionally).

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Personally, I believe that it would not be a good business practice to either encourage people to use other forums or to allow members to promote other forums within your forum.... even though surely we know that other bitcoin forums do exist.

Technically, yes. However, if you've spent a lot of time in threads related to contentious HF's, you would see that some are constantly trying to manipulate others in addition to discussions just kind-of looping.

well opening and closing the channel requires a ( larger than normal ) Blockchain TX so unless you're going to reuse the channel 100's of times, the cost/TX on LN will not be many orders of magnitude less.

The point is to use it multiple time. Opening a channel, creating a single TX and closing it is redundant.

are second layer payments free? i mean say i want to use Lighting Network to buy a coffee what kind of fees can i expect?

They aren't free, but they should be cheaper. We can't really tell you the exact fees at this point in time as we could end up giving you information that is completely false (unintentionally).

Will I be able to take a private key from a payment-channel payment - an exact amount of bitcoins - and activate it and use it on any system I want?
Will I be able audit it = proof, maybe with a signed message, that I did pay exactly this amount?
Will I be able to use my bitcoins locked in a payment channel to pay everywhere where I can pay with bitcoins?
Will I be able to log my bitcoins out of the payment channel without the "ok" from some other person? Or can some other person thread to keep my bitcoins logged in?

[marcus_of_augustus]

So many questions, shall we spoon feed it or would you like it blended up through a straw?

Or you could just do some reading, write a wiki and contribute back to all those others who have built the platform you are currently crapping all over because nobody taught you how to play nice with others.

[Carlton Banks]

Please leave.

no.

That's more than a little capricious, seeing as it was you that offered to leave:

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

So, are we to take you seriously when you ask questions or make statements of intent in future?

[Bergmann_Christoph]

So many questions, shall we spoon feed it or would you like it blended up through a straw?

Or you could just do some reading, write a wiki and contribute back to all those others who have built the platform you are currently crapping all over because nobody taught you how to play nice with others.

Sorry. My plan was not to insult you with asking questions you maybe are unable or unwilling to answer.

Thank you for your suggestion that I "do some reading" instead of asking question to people that have already read. But I think a knowledge system in which everybody has to read everything doesn't scale well, so I'd prefer if someone who knows the answers - it must not be you - shares them.

This have been the questions about Lightning:

Will I be able to take a private key from a payment-channel payment - an exact amount of bitcoins - and activate it and use it on any system I want?
Will I be able audit it = proof, maybe with a signed message, that I did pay exactly this amount?
Will I be able to use my bitcoins locked in a payment channel to pay everywhere where I can pay with bitcoins?
Will I be able to log my bitcoins out of the payment channel without the "ok" from some other person? Or can some other person thread to keep my bitcoins logged in?

[Carlton Banks]

This have been the questions about Lightning:

Will I be able to take a private key from a payment-channel payment - an exact amount of bitcoins - and activate it and use it on any system I want?

yes and no. Depends on the alternative system, not on Lightning's implementation

Will I be able audit it = proof, maybe with a signed message, that I did pay exactly this amount?

yes

Will I be able to use my bitcoins locked in a payment channel to pay everywhere where I can pay with bitcoins?

yes, it might be unwise, but it might not be. depends on the specific circumstances

Will I be able to log my bitcoins out of the payment channel without the "ok" from some other person? Or can some other person thread to keep my bitcoins logged in?

yes to the former, no to the latter




Now Christoph, you can't state that I don't know the facts when both:

1. You are asking for them (i.e. it is you that does not know the facts)

2. I am providing them to you



behave yourself

[hdbuck]

This have been the questions about Lightning:

Will I be able to take a private key from a payment-channel payment - an exact amount of bitcoins - and activate it and use it on any system I want?
Will I be able audit it = proof, maybe with a signed message, that I did pay exactly this amount?
Will I be able to use my bitcoins locked in a payment channel to pay everywhere where I can pay with bitcoins?
Will I be able to log my bitcoins out of the payment channel without the "ok" from some other person? Or can some other person thread to keep my bitcoins logged in?

ask coinbase?