ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

tell me Lauda,  did your arrogance go to new heights
when you became bitcointalk staff, or were you always
this way?   

You speak as if your opinions are god given truths
and anyone who disagrees must be either a shill or
ignorant.

The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

[watashi-kokoto]

tell me Lauda,  did your arrogance go to new heights
when you became bitcointalk staff, or were you always
this way?   

You speak as if your opinions are god given truths
and anyone who disagrees must be either a shill or
ignorant.

The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

Can't stump the Trump.
Can't crash the p2p electronic cash.

[Lauda]

tell me Lauda,  did your arrogance go to new heights
when you became bitcointalk staff, or were you always
this way?   

You speak as if your opinions are god given truths
and anyone who disagrees must be either a shill or
ignorant.

No. I'm a very strict person and pretty rational most of the time (although I do fight fire with fire as well). What I just said is true; when I end up being wrong I admit to it unlike the majority here who tends to go into endless discussions just to avoid saying that they're wrong; I was not talking about the governance model either.

[forevernoob]

The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

[franky1]

No. I'm a very strict person and pretty rational most of the time (although I do fight fire with fire as well). What I just said is true; when I end up being wrong I admit to it unlike the majority here who tends to go into endless discussions just to avoid saying that they're wrong; I was not talking about the governance model either.

but i await your apology, which took a month for you to be proven wrong.. even when you said weeks ago you spoke to all those involved to get your facts right we soon learned you still lacked the full understanding and that it took until only a few days ago for you to ask the right questions.. and be told even by those involved that my mindset was correct

Almost all of franky's posts in regards to SegWit are at least partially wrong though, and some are completely wrong.

-snip-

I won't waste my time going through the basics again. There's a security risk, i.e. new attack vector. Whether you believe that someone is going to try abusing it or not does not change the fact of its existence.

the reason I said franky's posts were interesting was because I haven't verified them he might have good points, he might not!

He's starting to look like a hopeless case though.

so my ongoing rant has been that segwit will cut off other implementations from fully validating unless they too upgraded to be segwit supporters.
your rant that everything will be fine...
you even said that the dev's said everything would be fine.. but................

[01:03] <Lauda> sipa what about a client that does not support segwit?
[01:03] <maaku> Lauda: why would you care to?
[01:03] <Lauda> Just out of curiousity.
[01:04] <sipa> they won't see the witness data
[01:04] <sipa> but they also don't care about it
[01:04] <Lauda> Someone mentioned it. So it is not possible for a client that does not support Segwit to see the witness data?
[01:04] <maaku> Lauda: it is certainly possible
[01:04] <maaku> Lauda: but it's meaningless to do.
[01:05] <sipa> of course it is "possible"... but that "possible" just means supporting segwit
[01:05] <Chiwawa_> imagine people wanted to stick with bitcoin-core 0.11 and not upgrade, will they be cut off from getting witness data, by defalt if segwit gets consensus?
[01:06] <maaku> Chiwawa_: they could certainly code up their wallet to get it, but again what's the point? are they going to check the witness themselves?

so unless other implementations add more code just to be able to fully validate again. they are going to get cut off and just passing the parcel of data they dont understand.. which in itself is a risk if a non-segwit miner adds data it cant check into a block.

basically
bitcoin-core v0.1
bitcoin-core v0.11
bitcoin-core v0.12
bitcoin classic
bitcoin unlimited
bitcoin xt
bitcoin .. whatever the other dozen implementations are
will be cut off from seeing signatures if segwit gets consensus..
and that makes bitcoincore v0.13SW the dictator

have a nice day.. as you are becoming a hopeless case

so i am actually happy you now know more then last month.. but now its time you cool off the attitude and pretending everyone is wrong.. even after they proved the opposite..

[jonald_fyookball]

The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

When did I ever say that?

[Carlton Banks]

The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

When did I ever say that?

When did you ever say anything through the centre of your mouth? Centralisation is the working governance model for open source software projects, no less so for a consensus driven network such as Bitcoin.

This "decentralise everything down to your fingernail fungus" bleeting has got to stop Jonald, or I'm going to insist on you decentralising your Bitcoin holdings to your fellow decentralists. And your wife/girlfriend, give it up jonald, we'll have no more of your centralising nonsense now!

[jonald_fyookball]

The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

When did I ever say that?

When did you ever say anything through the centre of your mouth? Centralisation is the working governance model for open source software projects, no less so for a consensus driven network such as Bitcoin.

This "decentralise everything down to your fingernail fungus" bleeting has got to stop Jonald, or I'm going to insist on you decentralising your Bitcoin holdings to your fellow decentralists. And your wife/girlfriend, give it up jonald, we'll have no more of your centralising nonsense now!

It seems that having an exchange of ideas without attacking someone is a challenge for you.

Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

[Lauda]

Just your everyday Bitcoin life.

[Carlton Banks]

Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?

... cause "governance reasons"

[hdbuck]

Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?

... cause "governance reasons"

the downfall of altcoins: now they just pretend being bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?

Forking competition is not the ideal route.  But if cooperation proves to be impossible, what is the alternative?

[QuestionAuthority]

Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.

[Carlton Banks]

Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.

You couldn't be any more wrong.

The power in money is part functional, and part belief. The functional has/is been/being taken care of, but the belief is a person to person phenomenon. Attempts at leading popular hardforks from third-parties to the Bitcoin dev team require commensurate popular support: belief. It's such an important aspect of what gives money it's value, and it's pliable in the defining stages of a new money. So, a bit of rhetorical discourse in public will thrash the issue out quite well, I would say. Shows the context to those who don't talk publicly, but use public forums for information anyway.

[forevernoob]

Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. And I don't know if I would continue with cryptocurrencies if Bitcoin forks without consensus.
It would show that mob rules and what's stopping them from forking other cryptocurrencies?

[QuestionAuthority]

Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.

You couldn't be any more wrong.

The power in money is part functional, and part belief. The functional has/is been/being taken care of, but the belief is a person to person phenomenon. Attempts at leading popular hardforks from third-parties to the Bitcoin dev team require commensurate popular support: belief. It's such an important aspect of what gives money it's value, and it's pliable in the defining stages of a new money. So, a bit of rhetorical discourse in public will thrash the issue out quite well, I would say. Shows the context to those who don't talk publicly, but use public forums for information anyway.

You can preach in public all you want to and simply confuse the people even more than they already are. There are so many completely incorrect views in this thread being presented as the gospel who's to say which one the general public will latch on to as their own. All the preaching in the world from people not in control will have very little to do with the decisions that are made. Bitcoin is a financial tool. Financial decisions are typically made by those who have the greatest stake in the game. None of those groups are here.

But I do understand where you're coming from and I suppose it's better to have general discussions in public as opposed to hidden on the TBF forum.

[iCEBREAKER]

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42e551/25_billion_worth_of_bitcoin_transactions_verified/

[franky1]

WOW, that is a shocker.. now icebreaker sounds like a greedy banker.. i guess he has moved over to the R3 darkside

happy that centralised exchanges who send large amounts of 10k coins can be sent in one go but completely ignores that 5000+ PEOPLE (separate transactions) may want to use their funds at the same time.. but cant

[iCEBREAKER]

WOW, that is a shocker.. now icebreaker sounds like a greedy banker.. i guess he has moved over to the R3 darkside

happy that centralised exchanges who send large amounts of 10k coins can be sent in one go but completely ignores that 5000+ PEOPLE (separate transactions) may want to use their funds at the same time.. but cant

That doesn't make me a "greedy banker."  Rather, it makes me one who realizes the One True Holy Blockchain can keep the bankers' potentially-useful natural greed in check, by ensuring transparent and honest financial institutions.

I've always known the destiny of private-sector digital currency (eventually/ultimately to be known as "Bitcoin) is to replace central banking, by acting as an easily auditable 'digital gold' mother-of-all-settlement-networks.

Hal Finny said so 5 years ago.  Where have you been?  Do you think Bitcoin is here to replace commercial banking?  Or make it more profitable when parasitic start-ups resell expensive, externally-subsidized blockchain real estate to impress their institutional backers?

Do you think this is about replacing fucking Apple Pay and fucking Square hipster/yuppie/Person-of-Walmart consumer quotidian bullshit?   

Compare

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

to

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "low-powered money" that serves as a gift certificate for Starbucks that issue their own delicious seasonal Frappucinos." cypherdoc, probably.

Then consider the possibility you "FREE TX 4EVA" Tooministas are useful idiots for the R3 darkside, or, GTFO n000b!