ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[g4vinshreds]

Bitcoin core ftw.

[1714160661]

1714160661

[1714160661]

1714160661

[1714160661]

1714160661

[1714160661]

1714160661

[jbreher]

In the "bitcoin=internet" analogy, the core broadcast network (the blockchain) is equivalent to the Internet layer (IPv4)--the layer that routes most internet traffic.

Flawed analogy is flawed. The network is not the blockchain, and neither of them are a protocol, which makes neither of them analogous to IPv4. And that's just problems #1 & #2.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

No. Where is the "consensus ledger?"

This is actually quite relevant to the Lightning Network. In the "bitcoin=internet" analogy, the core broadcast network (the blockchain) is equivalent to the Internet layer (IPv4)--the layer that routes most internet traffic. HTTP is part of the Application layer, which is a layer built on top of IPv4 due to IPv4's limited capacities for proper data delivery, sequencing and integrity.

i think the point was that the internet was scaled by adding layers and soft forking
the TCP/IP layer has stay the same, but with the HTTP layer thrown onto and later another layer ( JS / CSS / Flash etc. )
we have managed to get scale the internet without HardForking the underlying protocol TCP/IP
its an analogy that isn't perfect but isn't have bad...

... coming around to the 'right' way of thinking I see?

You need to throw in possibilities for UDP/IP and streaming-like analogies also, they move a LOT of traffic. Tiered-routing, NAT, IPSec, VPNs and others all add to the zoo of layered data solutions all based on IP but expanding its utility, capacity, effectiveness, etc.

[exstasie]

In the "bitcoin=internet" analogy, the core broadcast network (the blockchain) is equivalent to the Internet layer (IPv4)--the layer that routes most internet traffic.

Flawed analogy is flawed. The network is not the blockchain, and neither of them are a protocol, which makes neither of them analogous to IPv4. And that's just problems #1 & #2.

Now you're just being pedantic. The blockchain is the ledger that commits to the activity of the broadcast network. Doesn't change anything. Bitcoin is a protocol, specified by the behavior of the reference client, which encompasses all of this.

Feel free to explain how the bitcoin protocol is not analogous to IPv4, rather than just stating that. My comment spoke to the nature of broadcast networks, and the use of additional layers on top of IPv4 due to its shortcomings.

[johnyj]

side note: I think alot of hashing power is staying on Core because it seem controversial to "undermine the core devs". this most incorrect way of thinking needs to stop. competing implementation are perfectly valid and should be welcome.

1. This is not the web in which you can choose Safari, Mozilla or Chrom(e/ium) where these 3 programs all operate under the same web / http protocol.

2. The "competing implementations" in our case, is "your web sucks, I'll have my own web - along with my own browser".

3. Satoshi didn't even welcome ...compatible implementations, let alone competition of incompatible ones.

PS. The web evolves by something like a "...soft-forking" of new web clients and web servers who support new features like the HTML5 video player... Those running older browsers can access content without these features but not content with it (they'll have to revert to a flash player in this example). They can always upgrade to get access to newer features but the web is always the same. There are no two webs.

It is consensus, not the software you run decide what is bitcoin. If core changed total number of coins to 42 million, would you still use core software because you want one web?

At what criteria do you define a new feature to be rule breaking? Segwit soft fork demonstrated by using soft forks you can always do rule-breaking changes (like change the transaction/block format) while still not being rejected by the old clients. That change is rule breaking thus it is a hard fork, just sold as a soft fork

[exstasie]

It is consensus, not the software you run decide what is bitcoin.

Actually, in bitcoin the software is the only means to define consensus rules.

If core changed total number of coins to 42 million, would you still use core software because you want one web?

If Core did that, it would require a hard fork because it breaks consensus rules. This would split the network (or not--the fork would probably just be ignored). Consensus is defined by mutually enforced rules (via node software)...not by Core.

At what criteria do you define a new feature to be rule breaking?

When it breaks the rules, causing a network split.

Segwit soft fork demonstrated by using soft forks you can always do rule-breaking changes (like change the transaction/block format) while still not being rejected by the old clients.

Non-standard =/= breaking rules. What rules are being broken? Give an example. And then explain why a network split does not result.

That change is rule breaking thus it is a hard fork, just sold as a soft fork

Wrong. Soft forks add rules. Hard forks remove them. No consensus rules are being broken by Segwit.

[adamstgBit]

Segwit soft fork demonstrated by using soft forks you can always do rule-breaking changes (like change the transaction/block format) while still not being rejected by the old clients.

Non-standard =/= breaking rules. What rules are being broken? Give an example. And then explain why a network split does not result.

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

[TPTB_need_war]

Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

Even if the Tooministas win, they lose.

Even if Core win, they lose. For the dual reason, i.e. a minority shouldn't be able to control the outcome either.

The only way to win would be if uᴉoɔʇᴉq scaled or remained decentralized. It doesn't. So checkmate and draw simultaneously.

The winners are those who planned this outcome:

If you are going to base this list on such flimsy hearsay and on idolizing "Satoshi" (who was probably an elite team of special agents within the DEEP STATE) to the extent that you must attack any man who belittles your misbelief that Satoshi is God, then I will disrespect your list for its lack of objectivity.

What would be the purpose of the IC (or breakaway people) inventing uᴉoɔʇᴉq? To break it with quantum computing at the appropriate time?

...

You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine uᴉoɔʇᴉq profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official).

Whoa... Hold on!  Are you telling us that it is entirely possible, if not extremely likely, that the Chinese Communists are in fact subsidizing PoW mining in an effort to undermine the decentralization of uᴉoɔʇᴉq and control the currency in the hopes of applying capital controls to the digital economy through underhanded tactics which will further solidify their hegemony?

I've been hinting at that for months and finally an astute reader articulates it.

If you are wondering who created uᴉoɔʇᴉq though, I think more likely the globalist DEEP STATE funded by the $trillions Black Budget and knowing full well they could hide their capture of uᴉoɔʇᴉq blaming it on the "enemy". Nick Rockefeller (the one who warned Aaron Russo about 9/11 before it happened) has been spending most of his time in China.

[adamstgBit]

meh. nevermind.

[gmaxwell]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

[adamstgBit]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

i'd love to pick your brain and ask you questions
like "so why is it you are shooting for 95% hashing power before activating segwit?" but you're busy, and I dont want to disturb you
so I talk with poeple here for answers....
but you're right i should read up more and then i'd be the one schooling other poeple here.

[hdbuck]

Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

Even if the Tooministas win, they lose.

Even if Core win, they lose. For the dual reason, i.e. a minority shouldn't be able to control the outcome either.

The only way to win would be if uᴉoɔʇᴉq scaled or remained decentralized. It doesn't. So checkmate and draw simultaneously.

The winners are those who planned this outcome:

If you are going to base this list on such flimsy hearsay and on idolizing "Satoshi" (who was probably an elite team of special agents within the DEEP STATE) to the extent that you must attack any man who belittles your misbelief that Satoshi is God, then I will disrespect your list for its lack of objectivity.

What would be the purpose of the IC (or breakaway people) inventing uᴉoɔʇᴉq? To break it with quantum computing at the appropriate time?

...

You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine uᴉoɔʇᴉq profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official).

Whoa... Hold on!  Are you telling us that it is entirely possible, if not extremely likely, that the Chinese Communists are in fact subsidizing PoW mining in an effort to undermine the decentralization of uᴉoɔʇᴉq and control the currency in the hopes of applying capital controls to the digital economy through underhanded tactics which will further solidify their hegemony?

I've been hinting at that for months and finally an astute reader articulates it.

If you are wondering who created uᴉoɔʇᴉq though, I think more likely the globalist DEEP STATE funded by the $trillions Black Budget and knowing full well they could hide their capture of uᴉoɔʇᴉq blaming it on the "enemy". Nick Rockefeller (the one who warned Aaron Russo about 9/11 before it happened) has been spending most of his time in China.

Meh that "scaling" agitprop meme is getting tiring. How come you even fall for it.

Also, whether the DS committed bitcoin or not, bitcoiners are on the winning side.

The farce the illegitimate financial world has become will go down.

Hide your kids, hide your wives.. and get some bitcoins.

[Carlton Banks]

Meh that "scaling" agitprop meme is getting tiring. How come you even fall for it.

Also, whether the DS committed uᴉoɔʇᴉq or not, bitcoiners are on the winning side.

The farce the illegitimate financial world has become will go down.

Hide your kids, hide your wives.. and get some moondollars.

Yup (@ bolded), I'm quite fond of the scenario that the deepest of deep state actors were Satoshi, not "because 1 world currency", but "because cryptocurrency would always win in the long term anyway". They have a habit of leading predictable revolutions themselves, such that they can position themselves to collect any spoils of the redistribution. Plus ca change.

[Lauda]

i'd love to pick your brain and ask you questions

You would be wasting his time, time that could be spent designing and developing.

like "so why is it you are shooting for 95% hashing power before activating segwit?" but you're busy, and I dont want to disturb you

Yes, BIP16 used a lower activation threshold. The modern high thresholds are a result of learning from (and successfully preventing) the consensus disruption that happened with low thresholds.

but you're right i should read up more and then i'd be the one schooling other poeple here.

Sorry to break it to you, but you're far from 'schooling' other people.

[adamstgBit]

i'd love to pick your brain and ask you questions

You would be wasting his time, time that could be spent designing and developing.

it has occurred to me if they want 95% hashing power gmax is going to have to do thing like AMA's and such, to really sell the idea.
segwit is complex, some miners won't accept to run somthing they dont understand.
i figure they'll need to spend some time engaging with them to make them feel more conformable.

like "so why is it you are shooting for 95% hashing power before activating segwit?" but you're busy, and I dont want to disturb you

Yes, BIP16 used a lower activation threshold. The modern high thresholds are a result of learning from (and successfully preventing) the consensus disruption that happened with low thresholds.

this kinda proves my point... its hardly a softfork, for miners its all or nothing, we can't have 50% of the miners upgrade we need 95%

but you're right i should read up more and then i'd be the one schooling other poeple here.

Sorry to break it to you, but you're far from 'schooling' other people.

the point is if i actually knew the details i wouldn't make false assumptions...

[Adrian-x]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

If this stuff is so simple why don't you explain it. If it's too complicated to explain why are you intentional complicating Bitcoin, its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.


Edit* oops my apologies I eddied my post thinking I was quoting it below.

[adamstgBit]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

If this stuff is so simple why don't you explain it. If it's too complicated to explain why are you intentional complicating Bit Coin*, its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.

Gmaxwell R3KT - this criticism below seems reasonable and implies you have no clue how in PGP windows works, how about explaining this?

I relay think you should be explaining your self rather than abusing your authority and those who blindly follow you.

*seems one day a year uᴉoɔʇᴉq gets turned on its head but Bit Coin = uᴉoɔʇᴉq.

From p.16:

This exercise has taken the reader through the creation of a 3072-bit RSA PGP key using GnuPG 1.4.7 as it was compiled into a Microsoft Windows binary in 2007, thereby disproving the claims made in the Motherboard article. From this we can only conclude that the perpetrators of that misinformation did not understand the workings of PGP sufficiently to implement a different hash algorithm that was, as we have clearly demonstrated, readily deployed over a year before the release of the version used in the creation of the disputed keys. We hope that the foregoing explanation will go some way towards their education.

Maxwell states that his copy of the key log is definitive, however he has not supplied any timestamped supporting evidence to validate this assertion. We may either conclude that Gregory Maxwell understood what he was asserting and has intentionally misled the community in stating that the PGP keys referenced had been backdated, or that a uᴉoɔʇᴉq core developer did not understand the workings of PGP sufficiently. uᴉoɔʇᴉq was designed to allow for validation and proof in places where trust was being abused. It was created to ensure that trust authority alone is not sufficient.?


There follows a section on "centralisation", p.17:

There is an inherent warning in the foregoing discussion with regard to the growing power of individuals who may not fully grasp the full potential of the Blockchain but who nevertheless have a disproportionate level of influence. A case in point is the current dispute regarding the size of the Blockchain. It is not the increase in size of the Blockchain that is leading towards centralisation, it is the creation of an unintended scarcity. In limiting the size of the Block, the issue of control and the use of the protocol is centralised to a limited number of developers. The uᴉoɔʇᴉq protocol was designed to be the primary protocol in the same manner that IPv4 and soon IPv6 are the primary networking protocols. It may be that changes to uᴉoɔʇᴉq lead to forks in the future just as IPv4 is migrating towards IPv6, but the core of the Internet remains based on a single set of protocols. The core of this system is an RFC or “request for comment” system and not a fixed standard.

The result is that we have multiple protocol stacks across the Internet that are interacting. This is the plan for uᴉoɔʇᴉq and the Blockchain. The uᴉoɔʇᴉq core protocol was never designed to be a single implementation maintain by a small cabal acting to restrain the heretics. In restricting the Blocksize, the end is the creation of a centralised management body. This can only result in a centralised control function that was never intended for uᴉoɔʇᴉq. Satoshi was removed from the community to stop this from occurring. Too many people started to look to Satoshi as a figurehead and controller. Rather than experimenting and creating new systems within uᴉoɔʇᴉq, many people started to expect to be led. In the absence, the experiment has not led to an ecosystem of experimentation and research, of trial and failure, but one of dogma and rhetoric.

Several core developers, including Gregory Maxwell have assumed a mantle of control. This is centralisation. It is not companies that we need to ensure do not violate our trust, but individuals. All companies, all governments and all of society consists of individuals and the interactions they create. In the past, these ideas were discussed extensively with Mike Hearn and others who saw the need for the Blockchain to be unconstrained. Gregory Maxwell has been an avid supporter in limiting Blocksize [note 3]. The arguments as to the technical validity of this change are political and act against the core principles of uᴉoɔʇᴉq. The retention of limits on Block size consolidates power into the hands of a few individuals. This is the definition of centralisation.

The Internet was not a controlled system. Many applied for and received the equivalent of a standard in implementing an RFC, but at the same time, the development of new Internet Protocols occurred prior to the writing of an RFC. Many RFCs came to be written years after the protocol was widely adopted. This is what uᴉoɔʇᴉq was designed for. Not for cautious stagnation as the banks have allowed themselves to enter, but for change and growth. uᴉoɔʇᴉq was not created to have a single core team developing. It was developed in a manner that would allow anyone to create their own version. Each version would compete and could lead to forks, but this is a desired outcome. Where a fork is created it will either lead to a new set of protocols, or it will be rejected. Only the new forms of transactions are truly at risk and their introduction can be planned without the requirements for a central governing body.

gmaxwell said somthing questionable,
bitcoiners wrote a book about it.
welcome to bitcoin.

[exstasie]

its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.

Judging by the comments I read daily here.....I think not.

[johnyj]

That change is rule breaking thus it is a hard fork, just sold as a soft fork

Soft forks add rules. Hard forks remove them. No consensus rules are being broken by Segwit.

Don't make sure conclusions when you only see 10% of the whole picture. Check core's definition of soft fork, it is not that simple, adding rules is only one out of many possible scenarios of soft fork
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement

I can change the transaction format in my node software, and that change will split the chain immediately, since the old nodes do not accept my transaction format and my node do not accept old transaction format. But that's only one out of 4 different scenario: I can reject old transaction format while make my transaction format acceptable to old nodes, I can accept old transaction format while make my transaction format unacceptable for old nodes, or I can make them acceptable both way

That gives 4 different scenarios, and depends on if the hash rate of new nodes are larger than old nodes, in each case there will be 2 different scenarios (except the last) : either one of the chain get orphaned, or both chain extends indefinitely. That's total 7 different scenarios, while in 3 of them the network will partition into two different chains

And this is only for normal soft fork scenario, not segwit like soft fork. segwit soft fork is a special type of soft fork that does not follow the above rules since it created a virtual bitcoin node which looks exactly like bitcoin node and talk to bitcoin nodes, and the old network thought that they are talking to a real bitcoin node while in reality they are not. So a segwit node can break any rules while old nodes still believes they are talking to a normal old node. This action in itself is more like an attack to the network instead of an upgrading, thus is criticized by knowledgeable people

[exstasie]

That change is rule breaking thus it is a hard fork, just sold as a soft fork

Soft forks add rules. Hard forks remove them. No consensus rules are being broken by Segwit.

Don't make sure conclusions when you only see 10% of the whole picture. Check core's definition of soft fork, it is not that simple, adding rules is only one out of many possible scenarios of soft fork
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement

It seems you didn't read the article.

Soft forks allow compatible changes. With soft forks, old and new software can co-exist on the network. Soft forks can introduce new features without disruption because users who want to use the new features can upgrade, while those who do not are free to continue as normal.

A soft fork is a change to consensus rules, in which blocks that would have been valid under the old rules may become invalid under the new rules, but all blocks that would have been invalid under the old rules remain invalid under the new rules.

I can change the transaction format in my node software, and that change will split the chain immediately, since the old nodes do not accept my transaction format and my node do not accept old transaction format.

If the old nodes do not accept your transaction format, it's because it is invalid. For the third time, please try to understand the difference between non-standard and invalid. A non-standard transaction can be either valid or invalid.

Your scenario also ignores the notion of miner consensus prior to soft fork which would prevent miners from publishing transactions that do not conform to the new rules. But yes, the very point of a soft fork is adding new rules.

But that's only one out of 4 different scenario: I can reject old transaction format while make my transaction format acceptable to old nodes

Only if your transactions are valid under the old rules. If so, then yes. But without miner consensus, the networks could partition. That's basically how a soft fork works. Miners do not need anyone's permission to implement a soft fork, so they can restrict any rules they want; as long as a majority of hash power enforces those restrictions, no blocks will be mined that violate them. So...what's your point? You may be confusing an intentional soft fork (upgrade) with an attack.

I can accept old transaction format while make my transaction format unacceptable for old nodes

That would be because your transactions are invalid. Miners can't force the network to enforce new rules at the consensus level. They can only refuse to mine blocks that don't conform to their new rules.

or I can make them acceptable both way

Only if they are valid under old nodes' consensus rules. You cannot remove the consensus rules of old nodes.

That gives 4 different scenarios, and depends on if the hash rate of new nodes are larger than old nodes, each case there will another 2 different scenarios: either one of the chain get orphaned, or both chain extends indefinitely. That's total 8 different scenarios, while half of them will split into two different chains

You're talking nonsense. Here are the facts: In a soft fork, if miners enforcing the new rules do not control a majority of hash power, the networks can partition. That is why soft forks are implemented with a 95% threshold.

And this is only for normal soft fork scenario, not segwit like soft fork. segwit soft fork is a special type of soft fork that does not follow the above rules

How so? Explain exactly how it's different than another soft fork.

since it created a virtual bitcoin node which looks exactly like bitcoin node and talk to bitcoin nodes, and the old network thought that they are talking to a real bitcoin node while in reality they are not.

No. You just sound like a raving lunatic now.

So a segwit node can break any rules while old nodes still believes they are talking to a normal old node

Sorry but no. You're still pushing jstolfi's BS which was disproven long ago. A Segwit node cannot push invalid transactions which are then confirmed (anyone can push invalid transactions which are not confirmed). They cannot just "break any rules" and you haven't demonstrated how they can. At all.