ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[iCEBREAKER]

[iCEBREAKER]

[watashi-kokoto]

Classic to the moon!

2MB soon

[marcus_of_augustus]

https://www.reddit.com/domain/gavinandresen.svbtle.com/

... down we go.

[Cconvert2G36]

Gentlesirs? You requested a delivery?

[notbatman]

Heh, his stubbornness to contentiously hardfork bitcoin and break the consensus rule is almost like if the CIA threatened his life directly or something.
Can't possibly be that stupid. Or could it be?!  

Recent revelations indicate we can thank the Tavistock Institute.

[watashi-kokoto]

i truly do understand

Yes we know

http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#bitcoin-dev



Walls of the bandwagon crumbling already  

[watashi-kokoto]

i truly do understand

Yes we know

http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#bitcoin-dev


Walls of the bandwagon crumbling already  

That's possible

[chek2fire]

[worhiper_-_]

I can't understand this mindset most of Gavin's supporters have...

[alani123]

Bashing unreleased technologies that promise to solve the "problem" of scaling doesn't make much sense. Gavin's implementation in XT wasn't even viable compared to what technologies like sidechains or SegWit seem to be capable of. It's sad that so many gullible people have been fooled by Gavin's FUD about the blocksize. Currently there's no real demand for bigger blocks by the network aside of spam attacks. It'd be wiser to wait for a really promising technology to emerge other than having amateur developers program forks. In the end of the day, the emergent "he's a corporate shill" also doesn't make sense. What does that have to do if a technology is good for bitcoin, contrary to hard forks with no consensus.

[RealBitcoin]

Bashing unreleased technologies that promise to solve the "problem" of scaling doesn't make much sense. Gavin's implementation in XT wasn't even viable compared to what technologies like sidechains or SegWit seem to be capable of. It's sad that so many gullible people have been fooled by Gavin's FUD about the blocksize. Currently there's no real demand for bigger blocks by the network aside of spam attacks. It'd be wiser to wait for a really promising technology to emerge other than having amateur developers program forks. In the end of the day, the emergent "he's a corporate shill" also doesn't make sense. What does that have to do if a technology is good for bitcoin, contrary to hard forks with no consensus.

Yep the unconfirmed transactions arent that bad, and they are not growing very fast.

It costs me the same to send BTC, so I dont care yet. BITCOIN CORE is the real deal!

[Lauda]

Gavin on 2 MB blocks last year:

[Carlton Banks]

Gavin on 2 MB blocks last year:

lol at "average webpage size is 2MB"


So, Mr. Computer Scientist, I suppose all the Javascript interpreting and CSS rendering that takes place after the webpage is downloaded is also equivalent to verifying the ECDSA signatures & Merkle roots of a 2MB of Bitcoin transactions?

Much simplicity. Very ignorance.

[bargainbin]

Gavin on 2 MB blocks last year:

lol at "average webpage size is 2MB"


So, Mr. Computer Scientist, I suppose all the Javascript interpreting and CSS rendering that takes place after the webpage is downloaded is also equivalent to verifying the ECDSA signatures & Merkle roots of a 2MB of Bitcoin transactions?

Much simplicity. Very ignorance.

Still trying to run a full node on that old Samsung smartphone, I take it?

[Carlton Banks]

Still trying to run a full node on that old Samsung smartphone, I take it?

Still trying to pretend that big-blockism is all about everyone transacting on-chain?   The idea that old smartphones could handle your plan for infinite blocksizes should really be a central part of your rhetoric, no?  

[bargainbin]

Still trying to run a full node on that old Samsung smartphone, I take it?

Still trying to pretend that big-blockism is all about everyone transacting on-chain?   The idea that old smartphones could handle your plan for infinite blocksizes should really be a central part of your rhetoric, no?  

Lol no, mah nigga, just trying to keep the Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System dream alive for the Great Unwashed. 'Coz once they figure out we've been selling them a story, I do believe they'll lynch us

[Lauda]

lol at "average webpage size is 2MB"

So, Mr. Computer Scientist, I suppose all the Javascript interpreting and CSS rendering that takes place after the webpage is downloaded is also equivalent to verifying the ECDSA signatures & Merkle roots of a 2MB of Bitcoin transactions?

Much simplicity. Very ignorance.

Even if you ignore that part, Gavin has lost a lot of credibility for me in the block size debate. Half a year ago '2MB was absurdly small' (let's also recall "20MB urgent") and now he's the one who made the proposal for Classic. I'm not sure how people can't realize that he's not doing this for the community nor for Bitcoin. It wouldn't matter much to me if they had set the consensus threshold at 90-95% though.

[BitUsher]

It wouldn't matter much to me if they had set the consensus threshold at 90-95% though.

This has been recently done .. now we have a new implementation forked off in a new repo -

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic95/bitcoinclassic95

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43xcdp/i_created_a_new_version_of_bitcoin_classic_now/

It is being heavily downvoted because the other implementation doesn't want to acknowledge the valid concerns from the miners -

http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451#issuecomment-172346251

It is absurd to me that Softforks are set at 95 % before the fork initiates and some classic devs think that 75% is acceptable for a hard fork.

[bargainbin]

lol at "average webpage size is 2MB"

So, Mr. Computer Scientist, I suppose all the Javascript interpreting and CSS rendering that takes place after the webpage is downloaded is also equivalent to verifying the ECDSA signatures & Merkle roots of a 2MB of Bitcoin transactions?

Much simplicity. Very ignorance.

Even if you ignore that part, Gavin has lost a lot of credibility for me in the block size debate. Half a year ago '2MB was absurdly small' (let's also recall "20MB urgent") and now he's the one who made the proposal for Classic. I'm not sure how people can't realize that he's not doing this for the community nor for Bitcoin. It wouldn't matter much to me if they had set the consensus threshold at 90-95% though.

2MB *is* absurdly small, Lauda. What Gavin's doing is what's called "compromising."
Yes, upping the blocksize was (and is) urgent. A hard fork is required to change the blocksize, no matter if by 1 byte or 19 MB. If it's the hard fork that bothers you, you should understand why 2MB will give Bitcoin a new lease on life by kicking the can down the road, while 20 would kick it into the next county.

That said, he'll likely live down your loss of respect for him. He's rugged.