ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[chopstick]

Those were warnings about what was coming. The price jumped on pre halving FOMO. ETH went from peanuts to over $1 Billion market cap, now handling 40,000 tx per day that wouldn't fit on the Bitcoin network.

Yep, and the Blockstreamers think it's just a coincidence. And it's a "greedy self interest" () for asking for a simple scaling solution that could pretty much be implemented immediately.

[1714079236]

1714079236

[1714079236]

1714079236

[hdbuck]

Lol, there are literally hundreds of people calling for  a blocksize increase. And unless you are wearing blinders, it is obviously needed so we can scale at the present moment. Blocks are full and bitcoin is hurting while tx's and users are being kicked off the network. What about that do you not understand?

It is not a greedy self-interest. That does not even make sense. It is an obviously needed change for the good of the bitcoin network.

... yeah, as I thought, people like you are pretty hopelessly beyond help at this point, so even some helpful hints are just going to be falling on deaf ears.

You have become the epitome of the character in your avatar ... however the current object of your obsession is not bitcoin but something as unobtainable and vaguely defined as "scaling" of a p2p value network protocol. This is the thing about obsessively destructive personalities the objects of their obsession become more and more unobtainable, like "a ring to rule them all".

Hundreds 'calling for a blocksize increase" and thousands expending real resource on running full nodes 24/7 supporting status-quo for now. How's your maths? Calculate this, 1+1=time to stfu, until you know yourself better and exactly what it is that you are petulantly demanding from others.

lol at that 1+1=time to stfu

Poor ph0rkers now whining for core devs to write the HF they could not implement by themselves with their brilliant classic devs and c0myoonityy.

HF did not happen then, and it will certainly not happen any time soon. 

[iCEBREAKER]

2011 vintage FUD: Deepbit has 51% ZOMG BTC DOOMED

Do "PANIC! Deepbit is too big!" threads and "BTC will never succeed" threads make up over 50% of this board yet?

2016 vintage FUD:  1MB blocks are too small ZOMG BTC DOOMED

Those were warnings about what was coming. The price jumped on pre halving FOMO. ETH went from peanuts to over $1 Billion market cap, now handling 40,000 tx per day that wouldn't fit on the Bitcoin network.

Yep, and the Blockstreamers think it's just a coincidence. And it's a "greedy self interest" () for asking for a simple scaling solution that could pretty much be implemented immediately.

 

[chopstick]

Morons, I guess none of you can be convinced. It's not about WHO implements 2mb. It's about making it happening so BTC doesn't continue to stagnate and give up marketshare to alts. It should have already been done two years ago! If you can't even take basic action on this issue - then nothing gets done! The endless stalling on behalf of Core is obviously counterproductive.

I just read this quote from Roger:

"Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." -Roger Ver


BTC is stagnating while multi-million $ companies are now looking at using alts instead of BTC for their companies.

[Lauda]

"Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." -Roger Ver

Lauda's cat: "Unfortunately, I know of many Jedi masters with more than 100,000,000 students that have put their Bitcoin integration on hold because the block size is too big! Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin."
The above is as true as Ver's statement.

BTC is stagnating while multi-million $ companies are now looking at using alts instead of BTC for their companies.

What alts? The ETH pump scheme?  

[chopstick]

Lol... okay, Lauda. Whatever you say.

Here, I think this is appropriate for you:

[hdbuck]

Morons, I guess none of you can be convinced. It's not about WHO implements 2mb. It's about making it happening so BTC doesn't continue to stagnate and give up marketshare to alts.

Aww, you crying already?
It is true that it is not about "WHO implements 2mb". But rather about the fact that NOBODY can (unilaterally and consensually speaking).
So move along kiddo. Take some time a mourn in silence bitch.

It should have already been done two years ago! If you can't even take basic action on this issue - then nothing gets done! The endless stalling on behalf of Core is obviously counterproductive.

I just read this quote from Roger:

"Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." -Roger Ver
BTC is stagnating while multi-million $ companies are now looking at using alts instead of BTC for their companies.

Didja just make an appel to Roger authority? eww you n00bs are hopeless.
May the multimillion parasites find their way into shitcoins or even "blockchain tech", bitcoin hodlers not affected.
Besides, its so unfaaaiirrrrr that bitcoin "stagnates" at more than 400$. what ya waiting for, cash out already and fomo muh DAO! derp.

[Lauda]

No, it is not. The outcome of this 'problem' won't have an affect on me in any way. However, to not have any criticism towards someone with such a biased position is very wrong. Additionally, the current statement by Antpool does not help resolve the situation at all. They've practically set up a stalemate (unless something changes soon in either side):
Side 1) If Segwit then potential HF.
Side 2) If HF then potential Segwit.
Conclusion: Neither happens, and the situation is much worse than having just either one of those have.

It's not about WHO implements 2mb.

That is possibly not the case anymore as Classic is practically dead and there are no other 'active HF proposals'.

[hdbuck]

Side 1) If Segwit then potential HF.
Side 2) If HF then potential Segwit.
Conclusion: Neither happens, and the situation is much worse than having just either one of those have.

Heh, no need to fud the status quo.

It aint the end of bitcoin.

In fact it's quite bullish: very consensus, much resilience, total well meaning dipshits roundtables and paper agreements irrelevance.

That's the byzantine problem all over again, can't trust nobody but bitcoin, and it aint moving an inch.

[chopstick]

So you're okay with losing marketshare to alts while we wait for the fabled segwit/LN or whatever which won't be ready til god knows when?

Lol, you guys are hilarious. And you've got some hard lessons to learn.

PS - I never said it was the end of bitcoin. But it sure will be a bumpy ride. And pretty much all of these problems could have been easily avoided.

[hdbuck]

there is no problem, just as "there is no spoon".

bumpy ride keeps the people entertained, like if some stoopid HF would have set the price up anyway.
in any case, what a great analysis this is! what next? 8GB block is safe because Moore's Law?

re shitcoins: live and let live. scam and be scammed.

[hv_]

Side 1) If Segwit then potential HF.
Side 2) If HF then potential Segwit.
Conclusion: Neither happens, and the situation is much worse than having just either one of those have.

Heh, no need to fud the status quo.

It aint the end of bitcoin.

In fact it's quite bullish: very consensus, much resilience, total well meaning dipshits roundtables and paper agreements irrelevance.

That's the byzantine problem all over again, can't trust nobody but bitcoin, and it aint moving an inch.

Yeah - Looks all very Wright... 

[Lauda]

Heh, no need to fud the status quo.

That was not my intention. With 'worse' I meant the potential consensus on a decision (which is more difficult while we are in a stalemate).

It aint the end of bitcoin.

Correct.

So you're okay with losing marketshare to alts while we wait for the fabled segwit/LN or whatever which won't be ready til god knows when?

Segwit is coming independent from LN. Segwit isn't far away and is definitely not going to take longer (at this point) than a properly designed HF would.

[gmaxwell]

Segwit's implementation is done, and has been for some time now. It's in review and testing (both on testnet and the dedicated segnet) right now.

Any person or organization who is interested can help hurry it along by contributing to review and testing.

Bringing it back on topic:  Looks like "Bitcoin Classic" has still not integrated CSV support.  The CSV BIP is 9 months old now-- and was almost deployed in Core along with 0.12.0, but was given more time to mature first. It's now been out in Core for over a month-- and the BIP9 starting date was sent a bit in the future, in part to give other implementations time to update.

Signaling for it has started now and is already hitting half the hashrate.  This triggered "Classic" nodes to start warning that they didn't appear to be consistent with half the hashrate.  Did this spur a quick catch up? No: The response of classic's developer was to rip out the notice infrastructure.  Ironic: That this is happening after months of "Bitcoin Classic" advocates howling incorrectly about soft-forks silently downgrading the level of validation their nodes do... Doubly ironic: If changes like this were hardforks users of under-maintained projects like "Bitcoin Classic" and Bitcoin XT would be forced by the change to use Bitcoin Core instead of their preferred software.

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit's implementation is done, and has been for some time now. It's in review and testing (both on testnet and the dedicated segnet) right now.

Any person or organization who is interested can help hurry it along by contributing to review and testing.

Bringing it back on topic:  Looks like "Bitcoin Classic" has still not integrated CSV support.  The CSV BIP is 9 months old now-- and was almost deployed in Core along with 0.12.0, but was given more time to mature first. It's now been out in Core for over a month-- and the BIP9 starting date was sent a bit in the future, in part to give other implementations time to update.

Signaling for it has started now and is already hitting half the hashrate.  This triggered "Classic" nodes to start warning that they didn't appear to be consistent with half the hashrate.  Did this spur a quick catch up? No: The response of classic's developer was to rip out the notice infrastructure.  Ironic: That this is happening after months of "Bitcoin Classic" advocates howling incorrectly about soft-forks silently downgrading the level of validation their nodes do... Doubly ironic: If changes like this were hardforks users of under-maintained projects like "Bitcoin Classic" and Bitcoin XT would be forced by the change to use Bitcoin Core instead of their preferred software.

What is CSV support?

[RealBitcoin]

It's about making it happening so BTC doesn't continue to stagnate and give up marketshare to alts.

BTC is not stagnating, it's growing linearly, at a slow but steady pace. Better than a bubble.

It didnt gave up % to ETH, the money that flow into ETH came out of fiat, not BTC.

So all cryptocoins grow in parallel and not necessarly compete with eachother, for now.

It should have already been done two years ago! If you can't even take basic action on this issue - then nothing gets done! The endless stalling on behalf of Core is obviously counterproductive.

Even if that's true. Now it's too late, we have 7 billion $, and those should not be risked on foolish and irrational decisions.

[xyzzy099]

What is CSV support?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki

[JayJuanGee]

What is CSV support?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki

xyz:  Thanks for that link, and even though I don't exactly understand the technicalities, the CSV reference of Gmaxwell's earlier post is more clear.

It should have already been done two years ago! If you can't even take basic action on this issue - then nothing gets done! The endless stalling on behalf of Core is obviously counterproductive.

Even if that's true. Now it's too late, we have 7 billion $, and those should not be risked on foolish and irrational decisions.

RealBitcoin:  You are giving way too much credit to Chopstick's assertion about something to have been done 2 years ago.  This something (purportedly raising the blocksize limit) was not done 2 years ago because it was neither needed nor perceived to be needed nor perceived to be urgent.  Surely other people had differing perspectives and  thought such a raise in the blocksize limit was needed or perceived to be needed or perceived such an increase to be urgent... those people who thought that an increase was needed lost because they were not able to muster up enough support for their position - furthermore they continue to whine and to assert the same position over and over and over.. that it should have been done.. blah blah blah.. and we should not concede such points to them because the assumption underlying such position are without any merit.

But, yeah RB, I agree with your point that changes should not be made willy nilly to bitcoin's protocol, and merely for the sake of change when $7billion is directly at stake, and there seems to be around $20billion invested around bitcoin (maybe some of that is also shared by alt coin investments).  http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/05/24/cryptocurrency-market-bitcoin-worth-19-48-billion-2016/

[hdbuck]

changes should not be made willy nilly to bitcoin's protocol, and merely for the sake of change when $7billion is directly at stake, and there seems to be around $20billion invested around bitcoin (maybe some of that is also shared by alt coin investments).  http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/05/24/cryptocurrency-market-bitcoin-worth-19-48-billion-2016/

If only the VCs would have bought directly into bitcoin instead of cashburning scams middlemen, they'd surely be in a better position to negotiate some protocol changes..

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Beyond a leadership vacuum, Bitcoin’s “leadership” is less clear and toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of core developers, recently referred to other core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well meaning dips***s.”