ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[bargainbin]

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

[1714914999]

1714914999

[1714914999]

1714914999

[1714914999]

1714914999

[BillyBobZorton]

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

Like I said before, if you read my post again, you can see that I understand certain corporations have an interest in this, but not actual people that hope to have a censorship resistant Bitcoin long term. I guess you are one of those morons given your lack of reading comprehension.

[bargainbin]

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

Like I said before, if you read my post again, you can see that I understand certain corporations have an interest in this, but not actual people that hope to have a censorship resistant Bitcoin long term. I guess you are one of those morons given your lack of reading comprehension.

"Certain corporations" = Blockstream?
Also mind your manners, faggot.

[jonald_fyookball]

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

Like I said before, if you read my post again, you can see that I understand certain corporations have an interest in this, but not actual people that hope to have a censorship resistant Bitcoin long term. I guess you are one of those morons given your lack of reading comprehension.

How exactly is classic's plan to increase to 2MB at odds with 'a censorship resistant Bitcoin'?

Btw, its a very good article, it explains exactly why there is support for Classic among both corporations and individuals.

[BillyBobZorton]

Because a lot of people will have problems running a node on their computer if the block size starts increasing x2 times. Me and a lot of people are going to give up with running a node. I can afford it right now but at x2 pace the blockchain will be too big and I can't afford more hard disks now. There are broke and modest people in the community too that want to help running a node, no need to kick those out when we've got segwit now.
The more time we can resist with a small block size the more time for people like me to save up money for more hardware so we don't lose spread-out nodes.

[jonald_fyookball]

Because a lot of people will have problems running a node on their computer if the block size starts increasing x2 times. Me and a lot of people are going to give up with running a node. I can afford it right now but at x2 pace the blockchain will be too big and I can't afford more hard disks now. There are broke and modest people in the community too taht want to help running a node, no need to kick those out when we've got segwit now.

I hear what you're saying and its cool you're actually running a node, but if Bitcoin is going to grow, the blockchain is necessarily going to be growing quicker, even with segwit, even with LN.

[Blazed]

I can not believe it, but I agree with Icebreaker on something. If classic somehow took over it would crush Bitcoin. I do think all of these Bitcoin-(some random crap name here) fork attempts are good in a way. It is making the community more aware and involved with Bitcoins issues moving forward. I though classic was already dead after China said they want to stick with core anyways. What will the next one be named? Bitcoin Reloaded? Bitcoin Redux?

[franky1]

Because a lot of people will have problems running a node on their computer if the block size starts increasing x2 times. Me and a lot of people are going to give up with running a node. I can afford it right now but at x2 pace the blockchain will be too big and I can't afford more hard disks now. There are broke and modest people in the community too that want to help running a node, no need to kick those out when we've got segwit now.
The more time we can resist with a small block size the more time for people like me to save up money for more hardware so we don't lose spread-out nodes.

1.
blocks wont be 1.99 straight off the bat.. just like blocks were not 0.99 constantly after the may 2013 saga..
infact miners would only risk 1.005mb at first and then slowly increase when they are comfortable... allowing for alot of buffer space for expansion when ready..
EG the 1mb rule which equates to 52gb potential.. is not over 35000gb in size today.. so dont expect the blockchain to be growing by 104gb every year..
the 2mb is "potential" not actual

2. the cost?
2mb if they were indeed completely filled to the top, the data would only be 104gb a year AT WORSE.. which for just $100 can get you 2terrebyte hard drive (20 years)..
so spending $100 for 20 years or the equivalent of $5 a year is not that expensive..

3. do you think bitcoin-core will help.. do you realise that once fighting for months that screwing with signatures to save a few bytes of data is a "good thing".. they then want to increase data of a transaction with wacky new transaction types that hide the value people spend.. thus not helping with data bloat as promised.. even LN needs more than usual data per transaction to achieve a working system.. so dont expect leaner transaction data for very long..
 
honestly a ledger that doesnt contain signatures and doesnt show the values linked to addresses, or doesnt show every movement because its done on other less transparent networks... is no longer a open and transparent ledger.. thanks to bitcoin cores plans

[Lauda]

I'm pretty sure the Blockstream team could come to a consensus amongst themselves
on how to scale Bitcoin.

They just don't agree with the rest of the community (Gavin, coinbase, bitfury, etc)
It's easy to say "there's no consensus" when you're the one who's preventing it.

If you think that there is going to be democracy with Toomin, then think again. You have no idea what you're supporting. There is no consensus right now and Core is not preventing it.

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

-snip-

They are ignorant at best.

"It will be not easy to implement, but we can do it one month. This is why we are supporting Bitcoin Classic."

They obviously have no clue what they want with this. Why wait 1 month? Do the hard fork in 24 hours, it seems only reasonable. 

[bargainbin]

I'm pretty sure the Blockstream team could come to a consensus amongst themselves
on how to scale Bitcoin.

They just don't agree with the rest of the community (Gavin, coinbase, bitfury, etc)
It's easy to say "there's no consensus" when you're the one who's preventing it.

If you think that there is going to be democracy with Toomin, then think again. You have no idea what you're supporting. There is no consensus right now and Core is not preventing it.

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

-snip- http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-bitcoin-classic-scaling-debate-evolves/

They are ignorant at best.

The mining industry is ignorant? Horrifying, considering they secure our coins
As in "without them, the coin you hold would be worth, roughly, 3 toenail clippings."

[Lauda]

The mining industry is ignorant? Horrifying, considering they secure our coins
As in "without them, the coin you hold would be worth, roughly, 3 toenail clippings."

Not exactly wrong nor right. If they really think that this can/should be done in 1 month then they are ignorant at best. A hard fork should be scheduled at least 6 months from now. Everyone needs time to upgrade and anyone who does not will be cut off. If they do it within 1 month you can be sure that a lot of people and services will be cut off and chaos will strike.

[BldSwtTrs]

It's interesting to see how Back frames the Nakamoto consensus as democracy.

What he doesn't get is that in effect the Nakamoto consensus is a proxy for a market mechanisms. Democracy is not market, the two are entirely different beasts.

He thinks it's a struggle between democracy and logic whereas it's a struggle between market (what is called democracy) and central planning (what he called logic).

If Bitcoin is forked it will only means that miners care about the long term value of the system, not that they are illogical people who follow demagogic arguments. His views of the world is incredibly patronizing ("I am logical, the other are illogical"). He doesn't get that logic is a poor guide in a complex environment.

[bargainbin]

The mining industry is ignorant? Horrifying, considering they secure our coins
As in "without them, the coin you hold would be worth, roughly, 3 toenail clippings."

Not exactly wrong nor right. If they really think that this can/should be done in 1 month then they are ignorant at best. A hard fork should be scheduled at least 6 months from now. Everyone needs time to upgrade and anyone who does not will be cut off. If they do it within 1 month you can be sure that a lot of people and services will be cut off and chaos will strike.

By supporting Classic, they are supporting Classic. You feel that "they are ignorant at best," tho please don't think me rude if I discount your opinion. They've got millions invested and possibly do have a clue. Conversely, if they do not, we're pretty much forked anyhow.

Classic release is expected next week
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41qdrt/bitcoin_classic_update_email_for_subscribers_tldr/

[Lauda]

By supporting Classic, they are supporting Classic. You feel that "they are ignorant at best," tho please don't think me rude if I discount your opinion. They've got millions invested and possibly do have a clue. Conversely, if they do not, we're pretty much forked anyhow.

You are not rude, but you are wrong. They are not ignorant for supporting Classic, they are ignorant because of their lack of knowledge in regards to a hard fork. My opinion is valid, because it is fact that people/services/merchants that do not update will be cut off from the network. One month is a small window to upgrade.

[bargainbin]

By supporting Classic, they are supporting Classic. You feel that "they are ignorant at best," tho please don't think me rude if I discount your opinion. They've got millions invested and possibly do have a clue. Conversely, if they do not, we're pretty much forked anyhow.

You are not rude, but you are wrong. They are not ignorant for supporting Classic, they are ignorant because of their lack of knowledge in regards to a hard fork. My opinion is valid, because it is fact that people/services/merchants that do not update will be cut off from the network. One month is a small window to upgrade.

If the mining industry is ignorant of what a hard fork implies, I'd say we're forked, no? I mean, with a year's worth of scaling conferences, no one was able to educate them? Or?
Anyone wishing to switch to Classic can do so as simply as upgrading to the next version of Core. Easy peasy.

[BldSwtTrs]

By supporting Classic, they are supporting Classic. You feel that "they are ignorant at best," tho please don't think me rude if I discount your opinion. They've got millions invested and possibly do have a clue. Conversely, if they do not, we're pretty much forked anyhow.

You are not rude, but you are wrong. They are not ignorant for supporting Classic, they are ignorant because of their lack of knowledge in regards to a hard fork. My opinion is valid, because it is fact that people/services/merchants that do not update will be cut off from the network. One month is a small window to upgrade.

If the mining industry is ignorant of what a hard fork implies, I'd say we're forked, no? I mean, with a year's worth of scaling conferences, no one was able to educate them? Or?
Anyone wishing to switch to Classic can do so as simply as upgrading to the next version of Core. Easy peasy.

Only Adam Back knows the truth. All the others are ignorant.

After he dismiss bitcoin when he first heard about it, he only came back to Bitcoin in November 2013 because of the bubble but... he is our guide, we should follow him because only him knows the truth.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It's interesting to see how Back frames the Nakamoto consensus as democracy.

What he doesn't get is that in effect the Nakamoto consensus is a proxy for a market mechanisms. Democracy is not market, the two are entirely different beasts.

He thinks it's a struggle between democracy and logic whereas it's a struggle between market (what is called democracy) and central planning (what he called logic).

If Bitcoin is forked it will only means that miners care about the long term value of the system, not that they are illogical people who follow demagogic arguments. His views of the world is incredibly patronizing ("I am logical, the other are illogical"). He doesn't get that logic is a poor guide in a complex environment.

This is a subtle point. With Bitcoin, the market is always right. It's pretty heavy.

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from?  The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork?

Non-contentious hard forks (historically) addressed some outstanding issue that threatened Bitcoin's functionality.  IE, they fixed something that was indisputably broken.

Contentious hard forks seek to fix or improve what "isn't broken" from the perspective of some non-negligible faction of the socioeconomic majority.

Block size is the perfect example of this.  It pits the 'payment network' vs the 'store of value' clans.

Fortunately for the small block militia, Bitcoin was designed to protect minority opinions from the tyranny of the majority, by giving them nigh-infinite veto power.

Another way to say "contentious hard fork" is "breaking Bitcoin."  They are functional equivalents, and equally impossible AFAIK.

Bitcoin was engineered to withstand a continuous, coordinated attack by all the world's nation states, banks, and hax0rz.  It's not going to change just because some Gavinista-cum-Toominista assclowns make a lot of noise on Reddit about "Capacity Cliff" and "Hard Landing" FUD.

The "Free transactions 4eva" dimwits never had one iota of a chance in hell of perturbing Honey Badger.

The funniest thing is they know that, but refuse to accept it.   

So technically there is no difference?

[watashi-kokoto]

Classic REKT

[jonald_fyookball]

Fortunately for the small block militia, Bitcoin was designed to protect minority opinions from the tyranny of the majority, by giving them nigh-infinite veto power.
 

Who is them?  Blockstream? 
I'm not sure why anyone would think
'them' (whoever them is) having infinite veto power would
be a good idea.

The problem with the idea above is Bitcoin can never evolve
and/or remains under centralized development.
 
Also, if 'them' constantly vetoes needed changes ,
then it is simply a tyranny of a minority, which is probably worse.

If enough want something different, there will be a fork.
It will end up as 2 coins or the minority will capitulate
and join the majority..

[Lauda]

The problem with the idea above is Bitcoin can never evolve
and/or remains under centralized development.

Bitcoin has been constantly evolving over the years. It is just that you do not understand the true meaning of that word (e.g. infrastructure upgrades, soft forks). I'm actually worn out and have lowered the amount of posts on this matter.