ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[blunderer]

But... But I was told non-mining nodes are essential to Bitcoin security and decentralizationings
And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked?

Non-mining nodes are essential to security and decentralization. That doesn't mean that we have good (or complete) information about node counts. The former is a statement about how miners' selfish interests are balanced.

All the non-mining nodes wallets currently running could be replicated within ... I'll let your buddy answer

That's a lot harder to argue. I said data on nodes is incomplete -- not altogether useless. Operating a node means expending resources on bandwidth, storage -- those have costs. That's why the key to this data is in short term vs. long term analysis. It would be astronomically more expensive to operate 5000-8000 Core nodes over the past two years than it would be to spin up 800 Classic nodes over the past week. That the data is not completely transparent does not mean we should ignore it entirely.

Lol, how much, would you say, as compared to running a major factory mine? 1/100000th as much? Less?
If you invest a million dollars into mining BTC, might you not throw a buck or two @ nodes?
Heck, Bitcoin wiki tells me somebody was *incentivizing nodes* 'til recently:

Some are incentivizing it
Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program.

Anyhow, doesn't matter how long the "bad" nodes stay up, if they're meaningful to Bitcoin security in any way (beyond being a good wallet), a few hours is just fine.

[1713991082]

1713991082

[1713991082]

1713991082

[1713991082]

1713991082

[madjules007]

Lol, how much, would you say, as compared to running a major factory mine? 1/100000th? Less?
If you invest a million dollars into mining BTC, might you not throw a buck or two @ nodes?

Miners already run nodes. Why would miners be interested in mounting a Sybil attack that might break bitcoin into multiple ledgers? Seems that would be a poor business decision.

Heck, Bitcoin wiki tells me somebody was *incentivizing nodes* 'til recently:

Some are incentivizing it
Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program.

Anyhow, does it matter how long the "bad" nodes stay up, if they're meaningful to Bitcoin security in any way (beyond being a good wallet)?

Sure, it matters how long attacking nodes stay up, because attackers are spending resources to do it. Like everything else in bitcoin, the system depends on incentives. The nature of an attack is to expend resources in the short term to realize bigger gains in the long term. That's why 5000-8000 Core nodes operating over the past two years are unlikely to be Sybils, and 800 Classic nodes spun up over the past week are more likely to be Sybils. The latter is bolstered by the fact that the majority of Classic nodes are "new" nodes, not existing nodes that switched from Core to Classic.

The "bad" nodes are harmful to security because they are run incompatible software (assuming they are not pseudonodes). So if miners do not agree on which chain fork is valid (in a contentious hard fork), these nodes will ensure that multiple blockchains survive.

[RealBitcoin]

Given that many of the XT shills reinvented themselves as Classic shills, I imagine they'll be back to rally around the next fail fork. Too bad for them that "Classic" was a pretty good name. I doubt the next re-branding will sound so snazzy.

Is there any transparent source (not consider.it) that shows how many miners are in favor of the bitcoin classic?

What about bitcoin users / merchants?

I`d like to see a transparent number about the % of bitcoin classic supporters.

[Lauda]

Is there any transparent source (not consider.it) that shows how many miners are in favor of the bitcoin classic?

What about bitcoin users / merchants?

I`d like to see a transparent number about the % of bitcoin classic supporters.

Define 'transparent'? There isn't really a good way to measure exactly how many people are using Bitcoin, thus you can't really measure how many support Classic either. However, there are sites where you can vote on various arguments with your coins such as bitcoinocracy. Miners truly support an implementation only when they start mining related blocks. Currently nobody is mining using Classic.

[RealBitcoin]

Is there any transparent source (not consider.it) that shows how many miners are in favor of the bitcoin classic?

What about bitcoin users / merchants?

I`d like to see a transparent number about the % of bitcoin classic supporters.

Define 'transparent'? There isn't really a good way to measure exactly how many people are using Bitcoin, thus you can't really measure how many support Classic either. However, there are sites where you can vote on various arguments with your coins such as bitcoinocracy. Miners truly support an implementation only when they start mining related blocks. Currently nobody is mining using Classic.

Transparent as in not filled with sockpuppet accounts to change public opinion **cough** consider.it **cough**

Bitcoinocracy site is pretty good, vote with your money, I like it. I`m tired of sockpupped shills spewing propaganda.

That site needs more awareness.

[madjules007]

Given that many of the XT shills reinvented themselves as Classic shills, I imagine they'll be back to rally around the next fail fork. Too bad for them that "Classic" was a pretty good name. I doubt the next re-branding will sound so snazzy.

Is there any transparent source (not consider.it) that shows how many miners are in favor of the bitcoin classic?

What about bitcoin users / merchants?

I`d like to see a transparent number about the % of bitcoin classic supporters.

There is no transparent number. For now we can only go on what miners and pool admins have stated they will do.

Yesterday, miners and pool admins representing over 65% of hashing power (as well as other industry stakeholders) confirmed they will not be running Classic.
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.us3mkcrry

Today, the admin of Bitmain/Antpool (22%) said they will still be testing Classic.
https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

Past that, we will have to see whether any miners run the new software beyond the testing phase.

[RealBitcoin]

There is no transparent number. For now we can only go on what miners and pool admins have stated they will do.

Yesterday, miners and pool admins representing over 65% of hashing power (as well as other industry stakeholders) confirmed they will not be running Classic.
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.us3mkcrry

Yes that is re-assuring, we need to have past 80% consensus to have a stable system.

It's a challange, and it will take huge amounts of unity, and not division and sabotage tactics.

Today, the admin of Bitmain/Antpool (22%) said they will still be testing Classic.
https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

Past that, we will have to see whether any miners run the new software beyond the testing phase.

Testing is one thing, anybody can test things, but using it is another.

I hope after they found out that its not good, they will stay with us.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoinocracy site is pretty good, vote with your money, I like it. I`m tired of sockpupped shills spewing propaganda.

That site needs more awareness.

The really funny thing was how the cynical ToomimBro-dudes used Classic to push their consider.it start-up.

Bitcoinocracy is much better, and I agree it needs more awareness.

How about changing your sig from that silly NXT ad to something like

Code:

Bitcoinocracy.com - 1 Satoshi, 1 Vote

[blunderer]

Lol, how much, would you say, as compared to running a major factory mine? 1/100000th? Less?
If you invest a million dollars into mining BTC, might you not throw a buck or two @ nodes?

Miners already run nodes. Why would miners be interested in mounting a Sybil attack that might break bitcoin into multiple ledgers? Seems that would be a poor business decision.

Why?
Because:
"--The attacker can relay only blocks that he creates, putting you on a separate network. You're then open to double-spending attacks.
--If you rely on transactions with 0 confirmations, the attacker can just filter out certain transactions to execute a double-spending attack"
Sorry for retarded passive -> active voice jump, but that's the cringe factor of teh Bitcoin wiki 4U

Didn't you yourself suggest that the nodes are there as a means of stopping the miners from doing bullshit? Or was that Lauda?
How about *you* tell me why they're important to Bitcoin's security?

Heck, Bitcoin wiki tells me somebody was *incentivizing nodes* 'til recently:

Some are incentivizing it
Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program.

Anyhow, does it matter how long the "bad" nodes stay up, if they're meaningful to Bitcoin security in any way (beyond being a good wallet)?

Sure, it matters how long attacking nodes stay up, because attackers are spending resources to do it. Like everything else in bitcoin, the system depends on incentives. The nature of an attack is to expend resources in the short term to realize bigger gains in the long term. That's why 5000-8000 Core nodes operating over the past two years are unlikely to be Sybils, and 800 Classic nodes spun up over the past week are more likely to be Sybils. The latter is bolstered by the fact that the majority of Classic nodes are "new" nodes, not existing nodes that switched from Core to Classic.

I'm not suggesting that the 4079 Bitcoin Core nodes are anything but genuine. I, personally, haven't run a non-mining node (or mining, for that matter) for years. Seen no need. Some people are probably feeling the need for their voices to be heard, with all the draconian bullshit thermos let loose here & on /bitcoin when XT came out. Yeah, that sort of bullshit backfires, so now you're seeing people fire up nodes.
Not sure why this is surprising :-

[madjules007]

Lol, how much, would you say, as compared to running a major factory mine? 1/100000th? Less?
If you invest a million dollars into mining BTC, might you not throw a buck or two @ nodes?

Miners already run nodes. Why would miners be interested in mounting a Sybil attack that might break bitcoin into multiple ledgers? Seems that would be a poor business decision.

Why?
Because:
"--The attacker can relay only blocks that he creates, putting you on a separate network. You're then open to double-spending attacks.
--If you rely on transactions with 0 confirmations, the attacker can just filter out certain transactions to execute a double-spending attack"
Sorry for retarded passive -> active voice jump, but that's the cringe factor of teh Bitcoin wiki 4U

Ah, so we're talking about two different things. Sybil attacks don't imply incompatible consensus rules. I was talking about the lack of incentive a miner has to enforce a contentious hard fork because it would erode all trust in the system by creating multiple valid ledgers.

You're referring to specific double-spend attacks. Of course a miner will double-spend if he can profit by doing so. That's basic incentive. That's very different than miners intentionally running multiple incompatible versions to provoke a chain fork.

Didn't you yourself suggest that the nodes are there as a means of stopping the miners from doing bullshit? Or was that Lauda?
How about *you* tell me why they're important to Bitcoin's security?

Non-mining nodes reflect the interests of non-mining users, serving as a check on the power of miners. By not trusting mining nodes and enforcing the protocol they are integral to the integrity of the p2p system. Without them, miners have simply replaced central banks -- they may be competing against each other, but they can also collude against the userbase. And if nodes are sufficiently centralized, miners are not the only concern; it becomes much easier for other actors to coordinate Sybil attacks (tx censorship, etc).

I'm not suggesting that the 4079 Bitcoin Core nodes are anything but genuine. I, personally, haven't run a non-mining node (or mining, for that matter) for years. Seen no need. Some people are probably feeling the need for their voices to be heard, with all the draconian bullshit thermos let loose here & on /bitcoin when XT came out. Yeah, that sort of bullshit backfires, so now you're seeing people fire up nodes.
Not sure why this is surprising :-

Sure, I don't rule out a bit of that. You could have said the same thing after the XT release -- fast jump in XT nodes, which quickly fizzled out to nothing. "Thermos is such a dictator, of course people are firing up Classic nodes!" isn't a measurable phenomenon, nor is it provable. Probably better to keep other possibilities in mind, especially considering this is basically a replay of the XT release.

[iCEBREAKER]

I personally think Dash is the cryptocurrency that is best positioned to replace Bitcoin in a worse case scenario.

Dash had no pre-mine, pre-sale or anything like that, there is some controversy about when it was first launched, to much was mined in the first two days then should have been, the emission schedule was changed when that happened to fix the problem. Some people still shout scam or pre-mine because of this event, personally I do not think much off it since those coins have since been redistributed and everyone has had a chance to buy in when the price was much lower.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-328#post-11847

I.  Just.  Can't.

[Lauda]

I personally think Dash is the cryptocurrency that is best positioned to replace Bitcoin in a worse case scenario.

Dash had no pre-mine, pre-sale or anything like that, there is some controversy about when it was first launched, to much was mined in the first two days then should have been, the emission schedule was changed when that happened to fix the problem. Some people still shout scam or pre-mine because of this event, personally I do not think much off it since those coins have since been redistributed and everyone has had a chance to buy in when the price was much lower.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-328#post-11847

I.  Just.  Can't.

I always thought that Veritas was paid, but this has gone to a whole new level now. Dash had no pre-mine and there was "some" controversy with the launch? This is too much.


Interestingly as soon as their proposals get denied, and their controversial power grab gets rejected they start talking about doomsday scenarios.

it doesn't matter because they are getting paid to do the shouting, win lose or draw ... wonder when the shills contracts run out? then we'll finally get some peace, hopefully this weekend when the puppet masters realise they are throwing good btc away on a fool's errand.

A better investment would be send Bitcoins to dead addresses.

[sgbett]

Is there any transparent source (not consider.it) that shows how many miners are in favor of the bitcoin classic?

What about bitcoin users / merchants?

I`d like to see a transparent number about the % of bitcoin classic supporters.

Define 'transparent'? There isn't really a good way to measure exactly how many people are using Bitcoin, thus you can't really measure how many support Classic either. However, there are sites where you can vote on various arguments with your coins such as bitcoinocracy. Miners truly support an implementation only when they start mining related blocks. Currently nobody is mining using Classic.

The number of coins voting on even the most controversial topic represent around 1% of Bitcoin holdings and at most 60 individuals. Then there is the case that all those big ass block size increase votes are from linked addresses.

Whilst there is no way to count individual users, this is not really important. As there is a really good way to establish consensus. It's in the whitepaper. Everyone that is trying to reinvent the wheel probably ought to listen more and speak less.

Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation. Which is patently ridiculous and why the rules were made like thy were.

Q. What's more "hostile" than trying to change blocksize limit?
A. Trying to change the consensus mechanism.

[trashman43]

Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation. Which is patently ridiculous and why the rules were made like thy were.

Q. What's more "hostile" than trying to change blocksize limit?
A. Trying to change the consensus mechanism.

you're saying that a 75% threshold is trying to change the consensus mechanism, right? i believe that's true. with a hard fork, it's especially dangerous, as nodes by and large often don't update their software.

[franky1]

Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation. Which is patently ridiculous and why the rules were made like thy were.

Q. What's more "hostile" than trying to change blocksize limit?
A. Trying to change the consensus mechanism.

you're saying that a 75% threshold is trying to change the consensus mechanism, right? i believe that's true. with a hard fork, it's especially dangerous, as nodes by and large often don't update their software.

the 75% just puts the buffer in place.. nothing FORCES a miner to start building blocks bigger than one mb.. it just allows for the opertunity to make them when they are ready, most smart pool owners wont risk it until the level is way higher, to ensure their attempts dont get orphaned.

personally i wish the trigger was not based on just 7 days worth of data followed by the grace period, and was instead maybe 70 days worth of data(7500 out of 10,000 blocks), followed by a grace period.

but either way, its easy to view the stats way before it even hits the 1000th block of 75% 2mb desire indication, so people can prepare..

but either way.. even now:
IF 3 out of 6 blocks show the desire for the new buffer.. people can start thinking that it might be possible because thats about 50%
so they have to atleast start thinking its a possibility even without waiting for that 1000th block..
IF 72 out of 144 blocks show the desire for the new buffer.. people can start thinking that it might be possible because thats about 50%
and is based on 1 days data instead of one hour, so they have to atleast start thinking its a possibility and not a fluke even without waiting for that 1000th block..
IF 216 out of 432 blocks show the desire for the new buffer.. people can start thinking that it might be possible because thats about 50%
and is based on 3 days data instead of one day or hour, so they have to atleast start thinking its a possibility and not a fluke even without waiting for that 1000th block..

IF 4 out of 6 blocks show the desire for the new buffer.. people can start thinking that it might be possible because thats about 66%
so they have to atleast start thinking they should probably start coding a version with the new buffer setting even without waiting for that 1000th block..

IF 96 out of 144 blocks show the desire for the new buffer.. people can start thinking that it might be possible because thats about 66%
and is based on 1 days data instead of one hour, so they have to atleast start thinking its maybe not a fluke and they should probably start coding a version with the new buffer setting even without waiting for that 1000th block..

IF 216 out of 432 blocks show the desire for the new buffer.. people can start thinking that it might be possible because thats about 66%
and is based on 3 days data instead of one day or hour, so they have to atleast start thinking they should probably get they act together and code a version with the new buffer setting even without waiting for that 1000th block..

and IF they see 75% of blocks display the desire to upgrade the buffer before the trigger.. then they really need to get their act together.
if after trigger day, and if after 28 days grace period,, core dev's have not released a public available version with the buffer.. then they will be the cause of the fork by not allowing the public to prepare

remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into only making blocks over 1mb
remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into ignoring blocks under 1mb
remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into making blocks 1.999mb

[Zarathustra]

Nothing here indicates that the node consensus mechanism is trivial or easy to bypass. Pseudonodes aren't even operating with the new fork's consensus rules. What we're saying is that the numbers can give the appearance that Classic has significant node support even if it doesn't.

This is why node centralization is relevant. What used to be over 10,000 nodes is now closer to 5,000. The more bandwidth pressure we put on nodes, the less nodes we have, and the easier it is to mount a Sybil attack, such as the one Classic backers are currently mounting.

segwit 'no witness mode' takes a full node away from being a fullnode and into being just a compatible node.

centralization is where there is only one source of code. so blockstream wanting to be the only source of a fullnode. is them centralizing and then lowering the distribution of fullnodes by allowing a non-witness mode and wrongfully telling them its ok to not accept witness data

as for saying that everyone that wants 2mb is a "classic backer" shows your narrowmindedness..

oh and if you think that blockstream is winning the debate.. ill use lauda's data from an earlier post (grey and yellow show recent decisions on direction)

Nice chart. The stream blocking 1MB-PWC-Coin shows impressive momentum.

[franky1]

Nice chart. The stream blocking 1MB-PWC-Coin shows impressive momentum.

based on todays results.. the yellow line is now at 849

[trashman43]

Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation. Which is patently ridiculous and why the rules were made like thy were.

Q. What's more "hostile" than trying to change blocksize limit?
A. Trying to change the consensus mechanism.

you're saying that a 75% threshold is trying to change the consensus mechanism, right? i believe that's true. with a hard fork, it's especially dangerous, as nodes by and large often don't update their software.

the 75% just puts the buffer in place.. nothing FORCES a miner to start building blocks bigger than one mb.. it just allows for the opertunity to make them when they are ready, most smart pool owners wont risk it until the level is way higher, to ensure their attempts dont get orphaned.

lol wat

this buffer talk is complete nonsense. youve got it completely wrong. it doesn't matter if miners are not "forced" to do anything. what matters is that a miner can build bigger blocks after the rules are activated. don't you get it? we don't give a fuck what miners want to do "when they are ready." that's their prerogative. we have our own interests to worry about, like avoiding 2 or more blockchains.

youre saying that we should trust 100% of miners to act rationally for the good of the system (without good info on how to do that), even though a 75% threshold has created a situation where a single block mined can fork bitcoin into 2 or more blockchains. not orphaned blocks. more than one "valid" blockchain.

literally, your argument is that "smart pool owners" won't risk forking at 75%. if that were true, why the hell are the new rules taking effect after 75%? so we can put trust in all miners not to screw it up before 100% have switched? what if a "dumb miner" builds a 2MB block when only 70-80% are running the new software? 2 or more blockchains, that's what.

it's not a buffer at all. that's total bullshit yet you keep saying it over and over in every thread. but i suspect you already knew that.

and please don't post that retarded orphaning gif that shows zero understanding of consensus rules

[franky1]

Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation. Which is patently ridiculous and why the rules were made like thy were.

Q. What's more "hostile" than trying to change blocksize limit?
A. Trying to change the consensus mechanism.

you're saying that a 75% threshold is trying to change the consensus mechanism, right? i believe that's true. with a hard fork, it's especially dangerous, as nodes by and large often don't update their software.

the 75% just puts the buffer in place.. nothing FORCES a miner to start building blocks bigger than one mb.. it just allows for the opertunity to make them when they are ready, most smart pool owners wont risk it until the level is way higher, to ensure their attempts dont get orphaned.

lol wat

this buffer talk is complete nonsense. youve got it completely wrong. it doesn't matter if miners are not "forced" to do anything. what matters is that a miner can build bigger blocks after the rules are activated. don't you get it? we don't give a fuck what miners want to do "when they are ready." that's their prerogative. we have our own interests to worry about, like avoiding 2 or more blockchains.

youre saying that we should trust 100% of miners to act rationally for the good of the system (without good info on how to do that), even though a 75% threshold has created a situation where a single block mined can fork bitcoin into 2 or more blockchains. not orphaned blocks. more than one "valid" blockchain.

literally, your argument is that "smart pool owners" won't risk forking at 75%. if that were true, why the hell are the new rules taking effect after 75%? so we can put trust in all miners not to screw it up before 100% have switched? what if a "dumb miner" builds a 2MB block when only 70-80% are running the new software? 2 or more blockchains, that's what.

it's not a buffer at all. that's total bullshit yet you keep saying it over and over in every thread. but i suspect you already knew that.

and please don't post that retarded orphaning gif that shows zero understanding of consensus rules

orphaning is part of consensus... 75% is just a trigger, its not enough to form complete consensus and so orphans will still happen. thats why miners will most likely wait until 90%+.. even if they have the setting triggered, they would still wait it out to avoid the risk of orphans..

thats the point.. 75% is not good enough consensus.

as for why 75%..
well even at any time. anyone can change 1000000 to 2000000.. it dont matter.. the 75% is more of a warning to people to get their act together, its a wakeup call that they should not ignore the possibility

[trashman43]

and IF they see 75% of blocks display the desire to upgrade the buffer before the trigger.. then they really need to get their act together.
if after trigger day, and if after 28 days grace period,, core dev's have not released a public available version with the buffer.. then they will be the cause of the fork by not allowing the public to prepare

remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into only making blocks over 1mb
remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into ignoring blocks under 1mb
remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into making blocks 1.999mb

here's the important one: 2MB max block size limit is a nuclear button to force 1MB nodes to fork off any blocks > 1MB. we're trying to prevent the breakdown of bitcoin as a single ledger of 21 million coins. and youre here musing about the freedom of miners to cause that, while telling us to trust them not to.

what a joke