ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[YarkoL]

Bitcoin Unlimited is highly experimental and many of the basic operating principles are at best speculative. They should try it with an alt-coin fist at least, or a sidechain.

BU nodes hum along in the main network just fine, no one
is hurting themselves or anyone else.

But for studying longer-term perspectives, i agree it would be a
good idea to make an alt without fixed blocksize limits.

But we have a problem here; how to simulate adequately Bitcoin's situation
where non-mining validators blocksize preferences are limited by their
computing resources while miners preferences are subject to considerations of
a different sort.

Again this emphasizes that the problems that BU tries to address
are not just technical but more like socio-economical.

[1715149010]

1715149010

[1715149010]

1715149010

[1715149010]

1715149010

[1715149010]

1715149010

[Fatman3001]

Cool it chaps. Life's too short for this level of animosity, we got this.

I like the new, slightly wealthier Marcus.

Classic chaps need to relax, watch and learn.

Scratching bitcoins eyes out to save bitcoin wasn't working. Buy back in, sit down in the back of the bus and stfu for once.

Let's just hope some sort of cap increase is pushed out soon, so I won't have to meet Cranky Marcus ever again.

[Carlton Banks]

Cool it chaps. Life's too short for this level of animosity, we got this.

I like the new, slightly wealthier Marcus.

Classic chaps need to relax, watch and learn.

Scratching bitcoins eyes out to save bitcoin wasn't working. Buy back in, sit down in the back of the bus and stfu for once.

Let's just hope some sort of cap increase is pushed out soon, so I won't have to meet Cranky Marcus ever again.

lol, I think what you mean is "please do it again, preferably harder", because that's what you anti-Bitcoin coup advocates are always asking in essence. Color me concerned when the "campaign" has any more substance than a bunch of postings from internet trolls

[franky1]

my opinion of true anti-bitcoiners AKA blockstreamers.

Lauda: wants to be the spokesman for offchain transactions. hoping to earn an income running a hub so he can get rich from transaction fees, secretly when he gets to move out of the basement he wants to be the offchain equivelent of andreas antanopolous, yet knows that he doesnt have the technical skills to ever achieve it.

ICEBREAKER: comedian by day, Monero lover by night. he loves his altcoins and wants people to move over to altcoins

carlton banks: blockstream cult member.... if we translated his waffle to be about fiat.. he would say "if you do not join cult Goldman Sachs, then your not american'

extra note:
icebreakers profile is obvious monero fanboyism, and it seems to be rubbing off on his best friend lauda

Bitcoin could benefit from a secondary coin that could be considered a 'success'. Additionally, some 'competition' might not bad that bad either.
The anonymity of Monero would be a example of that.

[Carlton Banks]

didn't your posts once dedicate themselves to a small campaign in it's own right complaining of (imagined) ad hominem attacks, Franky? Is it not now massively ironic that it is you alone that that has nothing to offer but playground name-calling? Not to mention hypocritical beyond contempt

[jbreher]

Upon activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, previously fully-validating nodes are rendered non-validating nodes, as they are incapable of validating SegWit transactions.

Upon activation of the Classic hardfork, around 25% of nodes on the network--probably more since the activation threshold only counts miners and plenty of people seem fond of running old node versions--would be either forced to upgrade or kicked off the network entirely... unless the user ecosystem (vendors, exchanges, etc...) isn't supporting Classic anyways so 75% of miners just end up forking themselves onto something no one uses

Agreed. I'm just trying to cut through the FUD that claims The SegWit Omnibus Changeset has no effect upon legacy nodes. For such is a lie.

[jbreher]

Bitcoin Unlimited is highly experimental and many of the basic operating principles are at best speculative.

As is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

[jbreher]

Buy back in,

What could possibly have given you the impression that have sold? If I had, I would not be wasting my mental energy trying to chip away at this wall.

sit down in the back of the bus and stfu for once.

No. GFY. Neener-neener.

[franky1]

blah

Is it not now massively ironic that it is you alone that that has nothing to offer but playground name-calling?

kind of funny that i have actually linked in statements from people quoting stats and data.
kind of funny that i have actually done the maths.
kind of funny that i have asked blockstreamers to show REAL DATA/statistics to prove me wrong.. and the only reply i get is insults

by the way.
is it like a internal blockstream competition to try getting as many opportunities to say the word 'ad-hominem', kind of like a secret signature campaign
or is it the use of failed latin that gets you some extra blockstream commission? because your over-use and misunderstanding is very obvious

[gmaxwell]

"Classic" 0.12.1 is out-- it's still based on Core 0.12.0, and in particular doesn't include BIP 9 or the BIP 68, 112, 113 softforking changes.  I bet that number is going to cause a lot of confusion.  What it does include, however, is a hand full of other changes committed directly to the tree without pull requests that appear to have had little to no public review.

Among them, it completely rips out all notification that miners are signaling consensus rules that the node doesn't understand. This silences the _correct_ notice that classic nodes aren't consistent with the rules the majority hashpower are signaling an intent to enforce (68/112/113 in this case).

If this were actually widely used software I'd be raising a stink about it, thankfully it doesn't appear to be.

[Adrian-x]

Thanks Greg, so when is Core groin to implement a patch to the block limit that will allow miners to increase the block size?

[franky1]

This silences the _correct_ notice that classic nodes aren't consistent with the rules the majority hashpower are signaling an intent to enforce (68/112/113 in this case).

in short
core is ignoring the communities desire for blocklimit increase patches
classic is ignoring any core patches.

easy answer.. get core to include blocklimit increase in a publicly usable release THIS year (giving months for people to download when they like.. and for pools to test) before pools make a switch.

then classic would be a meaningless debate..

but no.. the delay and ignorance of core to pretend its not a core plan to release blocklimit increase code this summer.. and after peeling away every single lame delayed excuse they can think of.. pretty much comes down to a calendar..

basically translating to:
"we dont let people have it because we fear that people want it and fear that pools will use it."

[gmaxwell]

I'm more or less completely beside myself at Zander's claims that Classic implements BIP9: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4lvdsj/repost_from_rbitcoinclassic_warning_flag_while/d3qztv7?context=1

He might as well also say that Core implements 109 for all the relationship to reality that his remarks have.

[marcus_of_augustus]

the whole classic movement seems to be lies all the way down. The whole concept is based on a falsehood and it just begets one more desperate lie after another ... what's new? they're full of crap, we knew that.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm more or less completely beside myself at Zander's claims that Classic implements BIP9: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4lvdsj/repost_from_rbitcoinclassic_warning_flag_while/d3qztv7?context=1

He might as well also say that Core implements 109 for all the relationship to reality that his remarks have.

What a bizarre turn of events.   

Klassik seems to be in its death throes, twisting and flailing as it suffers hypoxic seizure.

The decent thing for Zander to do is have mercy, and pull the plug on Klassik's life support machine.

The sooner Zander and Ver admit they've reached their level of incompetence, the better.

I appreciate their earlier contribution of adversity to Bitcon's antifragility, but this enduring display of perfunctory pro forma contention has exceeded its natural lifespan and is starting to smell bad.

[JayJuanGee]

"Classic" 0.12.1 is out-- it's still based on Core 0.12.0, and in particular doesn't include BIP 9 or the BIP 68, 112, 113 softforking changes.  I bet that number is going to cause a lot of confusion.  What it does include, however, is a hand full of other changes committed directly to the tree without pull requests that appear to have had little to no public review.

Among them, it completely rips out all notification that miners are signaling consensus rules that the node doesn't understand. This silences the _correct_ notice that classic nodes aren't consistent with the rules the majority hashpower are signaling an intent to enforce (68/112/113 in this case).

If this were actually widely used software I'd be raising a stink about it, thankfully it doesn't appear to be.

I'm glad that some of you technical guys are keeping an eye on these kinds of coding matters and putting out these kinds of alerts - 

Your description of the situation really seems to show the disingenuous true colors of the classic forking wannabe folks, in that they are failing/refusing to implement valid changes, attempting to put the bitcoin space at risk by putting out non-vetted code, while at the same time engaging in apparent hostage-taking behaviors.

[JayJuanGee]

Thanks Greg, so when is Core groin to implement a patch to the block limit that will allow miners to increase the block size?

Why would they want to do something non-essential like that, especially when seg wit has not even gone live yet?  One step at a time, no?  Why would they want to make a change that is not needed, and even seemingly controversial, at that?

[JayJuanGee]

the whole classic movement seems to be lies all the way down. The whole concept is based on a falsehood and it just begets one more desperate lie after another ... what's new? they're full of crap, we knew that.

Probably, bitcoin becomes much stronger after having had identified these falsehoods and pointing them out and then also being on guard against future simlarly-situated baloney ruses

[Lauda]

I'm more or less completely beside myself at Zander's claims that Classic implements BIP9: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4lvdsj/repost_from_rbitcoinclassic_warning_flag_while/d3qztv7?context=1

He might as well also say that Core implements 109 for all the relationship to reality that his remarks have.

Well, this is quite interesting. He claims that he implemented it even though he did not? He seems competent now.

Probably, bitcoin becomes much stronger after having had identified these falsehoods and pointing them out and then also being on guard against future simlarly-situated baloney ruses

I've said this in a few threads that claimed that the 'war is over' since Classic is pretty much gone, this is not the end and this will not stop. Your next controversial HF might be just around the corner.

[franky1]

I've said this in a few threads that claimed that the 'war is over' since Classic is pretty much gone, this is not the end and this will not stop. Your next controversial HF might be just around the corner.

its only controversial if core goes on a campaign to ignore it and avoid joining everyone else to all upgrade at the same time.

how about you blockstreamers stop pretending that bitcoin is decentralized when its obvious that you want controversy to control bitcoin..

its like a basement dweller saying he wont leave the basement because he fears the dangers of nuclear war.. then goes and hacks the military to launch a nuke themselves just to prove a point. instead of getting out the basement and joining the rest of the world to solve world peace

in short.. CORE is causing the controversy by not implementing their own blocklimit increase
if core implemented the blocklimit increase.. then there is no controversy.. yea sure classic wont have the 'other features' but atleast people can be decentralized to choose which implementation they want. instead of virtually forced to only use one code base due to core(aka blockstream)