ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^^
 

What is "JJG" and why would it infect my treehouse?  

[1715318071]

1715318071

[1715318071]

1715318071

[JayJuanGee]

^^
 

What is "JJG" and why would it infect my treehouse?  

BMB... did Fatty take over your account?  In recent times, you seem to be emulating.   

[Fatman3001]

^^
 

What is "JJG" and why would it infect my treehouse?  

BMB... did Fatty take over your account?  In recent times, you seem to be emulating.   

It's ok, you can kill this thread. I don't mind.

[hdbuck]

The "hard forks should only happen in exigent circumstances, and may never be elective" position certainly has my sympathy, but my default support wavers when you start irrationally distorting, twisting, and misrepresenting the arguments in favor of the opposite approach.

Not gonna lie though, it makes me sick to see Luke state that this is to appease the industry. Why pander to them? They can learn how to make their model profitable or fuck off and die. Coinbase, Bitpay, Blockchain.info can't innovate, can't provide the revenue dream they sold to their investors? So they blame the tech, thinking big blocks and maybe a good ol' change of the guard will re-kindle their bankrupt "cheap transactions = mass adoption = profit" business plan. We should be boycotting these companies for their CEOs' complete and utter retardedness, constantly running their mouths about that which they clearly do not understand (or worse). I just wish someone would one-up Brian Armstrong, who compared incompatible bitcoin versions to Firefox and Internet Explorer -- but that one is hard to beat.

+1 I'm sick too. Had too much pop corn.


Btw dear ICY, I'm not misrepresenting, for one's simple question luke's answer is pretty straightforward:

asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why...
luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing


Luke has willingly and maybe innocently committed to instigate more uncertainty and drama in bitcoin's ecosystem instead of focusing in moving on now that their had they segwit thing out.

But them roundtable fools have been cornered by mining cartels (3 to 4 corps) to release some dummy hard fork if they were to implement them core baby segwit in the first place. And now Luke's wandering in the sea of bitcoin's community selling his shit like a mere door to door girlscout selling brownies. And that's bullshit i'm not keen on buying.

If the industry wants a hark fork, let them write whatever shit code they think they could force down the protocol's throat with them buncha ego tripping corporations whining for "progress" and deluding themselves as being relevant in bitcoin.


Also, Gmax, much appreciated your inputs. Glad you are still around!

Not only does a hardfork seem to be absolutely unnecessary, it should not be attempted unless it is absolutely necessary.

Accordingly, from my little understanding regarding technicalities (such as coding), the difference between a hard fork and a soft fork is either: 1) largely political or 2) in instances in which there is such a major technical flaw that you gotta force immediate and complete adoption because of such emergency technical change. 

If there is some other major reason for a hard fork that I am leaving out, then please advise.

Anyhow, it seems that attempting a hardfork to merely show that it can be done is a ploy that would undermine bitcoin's governance.. which is not necessary and not broken.

n°2 is correct and is the only legit scenario for pushing the nuclear button.

n°1 is a deadend.

[JayJuanGee]

^^
 

What is "JJG" and why would it infect my treehouse?  

BMB... did Fatty take over your account?  In recent times, you seem to be emulating.  

It's ok, you can kill this thread. I don't mind.

You grant me so much power...    


Must be an irresistible demonstration of deference to your elders...    

[btcusury]

Pfft. I'm not going to mislead people by failing to call it what it is-- going to have some secret meeting where you are massively outnumbered with no strong negotiator on your side where you let yourself get compelled to commit to random things which are either largely meaningless or violate other people's trust and confidence in you (or, in fact, commitments you made to others before leaving) is a truly foolish move, if not quite "publicly endorsing scammer-wright" grade.

It's not the end of the world, people screw up, shit happens, goes on on-- but someone here asked the question as to why Luke was going around polling segments of the community what kind of hardforks they'd find acceptable, and that is why. It is a disappointment because its likely to exacerbate and prolong some drama which could otherwise be largely over now.

We learn from our mistakes if we are well-meaning, and if they promised some things they can't get consensus on, then it's simply to their dishonor and not to the detriment of Bitcoin.

They weren't willing to walk, were they? "Travelled all the way to China, not going to go back empty handed" mentality. Folks, learn what negotiation means from Donald Trump.

[RealBitcoin]

Fuck the hardforkers.

Bitcoin needs to be compatible forever otherwise it's not a long term storage option.

If I want to set away a long term investment as a set & forget investment for like 10 years. I dont want to come back to this forum or to any bitcoin site and read the drama and FUD about new versions coming that are incompatible with the old ones.

If I want to setup some bitcoins for long term savings, then I should not need to check back every week for updates, thats the whole point.


These morons want us to be constantly updated with bitcoin as they steer it by their wishes. No, bitcoin is supposed to be nobody's property.


Imagine if you set away 20,000 BTC in a savings address, and then you fall into 10 years of coma. When you wake up, you find out that you don't own those coins anymore because some moron pushed a hardfork, and those that didnt uppgrade in time, lost every coin!!!

[RealBitcoin]

Like bitcoin classic with their 1 month or 3 months grace period.

Fuck them, are they really this dumb?

They literally want to force 30 million bitcoin users to forcibly uppgrade to their vision of bitcoin in a short time. And force everyone to be constantly updated with bitcoin news (even though I bet many people only check back once a month or once in six months, not everyone is a daily user)

What is this coercive means? Bitcoin is supposed to be a libertarian idea not a totalitarian dictatorship.


These bitcoin classic people really need to get to their psychiatrist for evaluation, because they have a few screws loose in their heads

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm not misrepresenting, for one's simple question luke's answer is pretty straightforward:

asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why...
luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing


Luke has willingly and maybe innocently committed to instigate more uncertainty and drama in bitcoin's ecosystem instead of focusing in moving on now that their had they segwit thing out.

But them roundtable fools have been cornered by mining cartels (3 to 4 corps) to release some dummy hard fork if they were to implement them core baby segwit in the first place. And now Luke's wandering in the sea of bitcoin's community selling his shit like a mere door to door girlscout selling brownies. And that's bullshit i'm not keen on buying.

If the industry wants a hark fork, let them write whatever shit code they think they could force down the protocol's throat with them buncha ego tripping corporations whining for "progress" and deluding themselves as being relevant in bitcoin.

If you don't want girl scout cookies, just say no thanks.  There's no need to attack the innocent Brownie's motivation and get all huffy because you don't like Girl Scout Inc's SJW agenda, nor bluster and harrumph about "how dare those greedy little imps come to offer me their Evil Thin Mints and Satanic Samoas!"  

You're still selectively quoting only the first half of Luke's response, which was bifurcated into separate (external) political/governance and (internal) technical warrants for a hard fork.

You continue ignoring the second half, which provides what your screeching demands, ie a security-based justification in the form of fixing block withholding.

I'm generally in favor of waiting for something like an exigent block-withholding-crisis to force through (with vanishing contention) a single-purpose hard fork, but there's no good reason to pretend luke exclusively predicated a hard fork on pleasing Brian Fucking Armstrong.

As some wag recently declared, "I don't like it when somebody comes into my living room and shits on the floor, but I don't need to pretend it's nuclear waste either."  

May I ask how you generally feel about the Hard Fork Wish List?  Is it something that should be canvassed/lobbied for (as luke was doing), or do you see it as some insidious plot of the banksters to poison honey badger with attack-surface-bloating features?

If we did hard fork in an emergency, should we have Wish List code ready to deploy so the crisis becomes an opportunity, or does that offend some subtle yet overweening #B-A purity conceit?

Of course the various roundtables are silly exercises in granfalloonery, but I don't see the harm in east-west summits (especially if copious amounts of tasty dim sum + beer were consumed in the process, and a good time was had by all).

While fully agreeing with the "Fuck you Brian Armstrong" sentiment, I don't see how responding to luke's friendly inquiry with "zomg fuck you for trying to improve Bitcoin $down $down $down!!!11!" really helps anything.

As with the embarassing display of impotent rage directed at sipa over a (segwit) soft fork, such behavior hardly qualifies as "serene."  

LUKE:  Hai gize, u want show everyone BTC governance can work to preemptively fix security problems like block withholding?

#B-A: zomg, LUKE is working for the banksters!!!  Support block withholding or Coinbase wins!!!  

*LUKE has been kickbanned for daring to ask simple, glaring, obvious questions*

Do you see the logical and practical disconnections in the above interaction?

[Lauda]

Imagine if you set away 20,000 BTC in a savings address, and then you fall into 10 years of coma. When you wake up, you find out that you don't own those coins anymore because some moron pushed a hardfork, and those that didnt uppgrade in time, lost every coin!!!

You do realize that it is most likely that you would have lost your coins in either case since this is about weakened encryption? There's just a difference between the community drawing out to a consensus in which coins get "destroyed" or a hacker exploiting the weakened encryption only to take away your coins. You'd have to choose the lesser of two evils.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Fuck the hardforkers.

Bitcoin needs to be compatible forever otherwise it's not a long term storage option.

If I want to set away a long term investment as a set & forget investment for like 10 years. I dont want to come back to this forum or to any bitcoin site and read the drama and FUD about new versions coming that are incompatible with the old ones.

If I want to setup some bitcoins for long term savings, then I should not need to check back every week for updates, thats the whole point.

What an idiotic thing to say. You're still ranting about how your bitcoind 0.7 won't sync?

This is a completely separate issue from Theymos' call to preemptively destroy old coins sent to pub key before dastardly haxors grab them with their quantum computers.

...

LUKE:  Hai gize, u want show everyone BTC governance can work to preemptively fix security problems like block withholding?

#B-A: zomg, LUKE is working for the banksters!!!  Support block withholding or Coinbase wins!!! 

*LUKE has been kickbanned for daring to ask simple, glaring, obvious questions*

Do you see the logical and practical disconnections in the above interaction?

You think hdbuck is capable of logical and practical thought? How cute. He really believes this stuff, doesn't just use it as a method to encourage price appreciation in altcoins.

Also, didn't Mircea angrily adjust the lapels of his ill-fitting three piece suit before leaving #bitcoin-assets for good? IIRC it was around the time of the bitbet fiasco. You know... that deliciously ironic moment where he sent the tx with an inadequate fee for full blocks... then flailed wildly while blaming the whole thing on a vast chinese miner conspiracy.

After being called on his bullshit by the more principled members of B-A, he left for his own irc chatroom, and some of the more credulous members of B-A left with him.

Just another data point in the evolution of modern Bitcoin discourse... echochamber all the things! It's his safe space now, similar to how this thread is a safe space for Gregory.

Any thoughts JJG? 

[RealBitcoin]

You do realize that it is most likely that you would have lost your coins in either case since this is about weakened encryption? There's just a difference between the community drawing out to a consensus in which coins get "destroyed" or a hacker exploiting the weakened encryption only to take away your coins. You'd have to choose the lesser of two evils.

What an idiotic thing to say. You're still ranting about how your bitcoind 0.7 won't sync?

This is a completely separate issue from Theymos' call to preemptively destroy old coins sent to pub key before dastardly haxors grab them with their quantum computers.

I`m not talking about the theymos paper, but about the bitcoin classic people that want a more invasive approach.



BTW Wtf is all with this quantum computer bullshit scaremongering? Do you guys realize that there wont be a quantum computer for the foreseeable future. And in my opinion there wont be any ever.

The best there is is a 5 qubit setup (which can barely do basic calculations), at near 0 Kelvin degree, and the quantum interference scales up exponentially with the heat.

Therefore the difficulty of putting together a more qubit setup  scales exponentially, since the heat entropy will just make the setup crash as any small heat fluctuation will just make the quantum state decohere.

How are you cooling the atoms down to 0 Kelvin? Its literally impossible, and if nothing else, then the background radiation of the universe will just destroy any entangled state eventually. It will be impossoble to built complex qubit setups.

Not even the intergalactic vaacum of the universe is 0 Kelvin, or close to it, so how do you reach that on Earth with all the radiation that is going on here?

In my opinion there wont be ever a quantum computer, but even if it will be, its not in the near future, so folks really need to stup this quantum scaremongering.

[Luke-Jr]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

[hdbuck]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

That's exactly what makes Bitcoin so precious. Politicians cancel each other out.





Bubye central planing politics. Hello decentralized status quo.

[JayJuanGee]

Fuck the hardforkers.

Bitcoin needs to be compatible forever otherwise it's not a long term storage option.

If I want to set away a long term investment as a set & forget investment for like 10 years. I dont want to come back to this forum or to any bitcoin site and read the drama and FUD about new versions coming that are incompatible with the old ones.

If I want to setup some bitcoins for long term savings, then I should not need to check back every week for updates, thats the whole point.


These morons want us to be constantly updated with bitcoin as they steer it by their wishes. No, bitcoin is supposed to be nobody's property.


Imagine if you set away 20,000 BTC in a savings address, and then you fall into 10 years of coma. When you wake up, you find out that you don't own those coins anymore because some moron pushed a hardfork, and those that didnt uppgrade in time, lost every coin!!!

All of your above points are very valid RealBitcoin, and you don't have to go as far as a "Coma" scenario to imagine a large number of reasons in which someone, successors or joint owners may not attempt to access his/her bitcoins for 10 years or longer, including potential inaccessibility issues that happen in the real world, including events in which any of us may attempt to leave our bitcoin's to others, and those others are either not very tech savy or resourceful and have difficulties figuring out how to get to our coins or that we even have coins (or they find the storage information at a much later date than anticipated).

[JayJuanGee]

Any thoughts JJG? 

Yep......  I gots a few thoughts.   

We seem to be experiencing some pretty decent upwards price pressures on relatively low trade volume in the past few days, in spite, XT / Classic supporters continuing to whine since about $403 that an emergency change in core/Bitcoin governance is absolutely required in order to instill sufficient confidence in the BTC investor/speculator community.. 

Hahahahahaha   Go figure, doesn't seem easy to bring us back down to $403?  Maybe even some XT/Classic proponents are coming to realize a certain sense of futility to wait and/or spread FUCD in order to achieve sub $400 coins...? 

[JayJuanGee]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

[Luke-Jr]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

[JayJuanGee]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.

In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.

[Luke-Jr]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.

In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.

The mentioned block withholding attack falls under "allowing ... to steal coins" IMO.

I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).