ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[muyuu]

Time for another rebranding? 

[1715117818]

1715117818

[1715117818]

1715117818

[1715117818]

1715117818

[chek2fire]

the best strategy for Classic is now to drop 2mb support and propose a 4mb hard fork

[chek2fire]

We will only run Bitcoin Core-compatible consensus systems, eventually containing both SegWit and the hard-fork, in production, for the foreseeable future.

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.6zlzqx6rc

[iCEBREAKER]

We will only run Bitcoin Core-compatible consensus systems, eventually containing both SegWit and the hard-fork, in production, for the foreseeable future.

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.6zlzqx6rc

[blunderer]

#REKT

Brilliant. Best news I've seen for a while. Hope all these Gavin cheerleaders crawl back into the shadows now.

Huzzah!

[iCEBREAKER]

Update on Classic hashrate support



 


Gavinistas deeply saddened.

Bitco.in flags at half mast.

/r/btc on suicide watch.

If only someone had warned them Classic would enjoy just as much success as XT, ie none at all.

Oh wait...   

[VeritasSapere]

The incentives for bigger blocks will continue to align, it is the very game theory that Bitcoin is based on. Core can not delay the inevitable forever. The miners will realize eventually that it is in their own best self interest to scale Bitcoin directly. Even if we do still need to go through and feel the pain of a congested network and the consequences that entails. I am confident that the original vision of Satoshi will triumph even if it will be in the form of a chain fork or altcoin which will become the dominant cryptocurrency of the world. The cryptocurrency revolution will succeed no matter what happens to Bitcoin.

Understand that there is a fundamental difference in vision here, for the future of Bitcoin. It is important to recognize this fact so that we can objectively choose the best path for ourselves. Not necessarily following who ever we think is more "qualified" because questions of vision might not necessarily be the expertise of a group of programmers. Considering that Core is attempting to change the fundamental economic policy of Bitcoin, putting it on a radically different path compared to what was always intended, until relatively recently.

I strongly disagree with this path that Core wants Bitcoin to take, I would not even want to be part of such a project. I think their plan for Bitcoin going into the future has major flaws in both economics and game theory, if Block Stream succeeds I am certain that version of Bitcoin will not remain the dominant cryptocurrency for long. Fortunately this can still work out for the better, more people are starting to realize this and you do not need to be an expert in economics to realize that reliability, cost and ease of use do matter, and that Bitcoin can be outcompeted and obsolesced. Bitcoin is freedom, Bitcoin is a form of democracy even though Block Stream will try and convince you that it is not, what does that tell you?

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

-snipped FUD-

So we're moving on to Dash, the best candidate in the market that had no premine or anything (your words)?   What simple people like you don't understand is, if Bitcoin fails it is highly likely that every crypto-currency gets abandoned (until there is something new and truly innovative).

Update on Classic hashrate support
-snip-

I wonder when they're going to de-list the, if ever?

[hdbuck]

Update on Classic hashrate support
-snip-

I wonder when they're going to de-list the, if ever?

Maybe right a BIP about it.

[bargainbin]

Update on Classic hashrate support
-snip-

I wonder when they're going to de-list the, if ever?

Maybe right a BIP about it.

ITT: we think as goodly as we right.

                                                                            rite?


...righte?

[pereira4]

The biggest problem with Classic shills is that they can't deal with the fact Bitcoin will never scale anywhere without Lightning Network and no matter how much you raise the blocksize, the only thing you are doing is centralizing the nodes compared to what you would get out of it which is sightly cheaper on-chain transactions (and no one is going to be using on-chain transactions in the future when they realize they can do it for near free with LN and no one is having any problems with it whatsoever).
Just absolutely no idea how to scale protocols these guys.

[VeritasSapere]

I do not consider off chain solutions to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all. We can scale Bitcoin directly, if Bitcoin will not do it alternative cryptocurrencies will. I do not see any reason why people would choose to use a layer build on top of the blockchain when they can just use the blockchain directly, easily, quickly and cheaply. Without the added complexion and abstraction that is required by having to use a third party on top of the blockchain in order to transact.

I think that you are fooling yourself if you think that Bitcoin can become the dominant currency of the world with high fees. Especially considering that it is not even a technological necessity yet. I accept that with far greater adoption this might be the case but blocking the growth in transaction volume now at this stage so early in its development will guarantee that Bitcoin will be outcompeted and obsolesced. I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above the average transaction volume, this way the blocksize limit serves its original purpose as an anti spam feature, not as an economic policy tool for central planning, wielded by a group of technocrats.

[JackH]

The biggest problem with Classic shills is that they can't deal with the fact Bitcoin will never scale anywhere without Lightning Network and no matter how much you raise the blocksize, the only thing you are doing is centralizing the nodes compared to what you would get out of it which is sightly cheaper on-chain transactions (and no one is going to be using on-chain transactions in the future when they realize they can do it for near free with LN and no one is having any problems with it whatsoever).
Just absolutely no idea how to scale protocols these guys.

+1

[Lauda]

I do not consider off chain solutions to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all. We can scale Bitcoin directly, if Bitcoin will not do it alternative cryptocurrencies will. I do not see any reason why people would choose to use a layer build on top of the blockchain when they can just use the blockchain directly, easily, quickly and cheaply. Without the added complexion and abstraction that is required by having to use a third party in order to transact.

You've missed the post above you:

The biggest problem with Classic shills is that they can't deal with the fact Bitcoin will never scale anywhere without Lightning Network and no matter how much you raise the blocksize, the only thing you are doing is centralizing the nodes compared to what you would get out of it which is sightly cheaper on-chain transactions (and no one is going to be using on-chain transactions in the future when they realize they can do it for near free with LN and no one is having any problems with it whatsoever).
Just absolutely no idea how to scale protocols these guys.

Unless you have a degree that is relevant to scaling large scale system Veritas, you should not be telling the engineers how to do it.

[VeritasSapere]

I could also argue that maybe the Engineers should not fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin without listening very closely to the advice of economists and social scientists. It would be wise for the engineers to recognize that economics might not be their area of expertise.

I also do not buy the whole idea that if Core says it is impossible it therefore must be impossible until of course they say that it is not. There are other engineers that are not within Core that are saying that we can scale Bitcoin directly, so faced with this contradiction by the technical experts I choose the path which is most favorable from the perspective of economics, game theory, decentralization and freedom. Which happens to also be the original vision for Bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

I could also argue that maybe the Engineers should not fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin without listening very closely to the advice of economists and social scientists. It would be wise for the engineers to recognize that economics might not be their area of expertise.

I also do not buy the whole idea that if Core says it is impossible it therefore must be impossible until of course they say that it is not. There are other engineers that are not within Core that are saying that we can scale Bitcoin directly, so faced with this contradiction by the technical experts I choose the path which is most favorable from the perspective of economics, game theory, decentralization and freedom. Which happens to also be the original vision for Bitcoin.

But for that to be measured we need transparent devs putting out ideas and specialists and technicians verifying that, with actual proofs like whitepapers and scientific documentations.

Opinions dont matter here, bitcoin is science and it needs to be dealt with it that way. It's not a democracy sorry.

[VeritasSapere]

I could also argue that maybe the Engineers should not fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin without listening very closely to the advice of economists and social scientists. It would be wise for the engineers to recognize that economics might not be their area of expertise.

I also do not buy the whole idea that if Core says it is impossible it therefore must be impossible until of course they say that it is not. There are other engineers that are not within Core that are saying that we can scale Bitcoin directly, so faced with this contradiction by the technical experts I choose the path which is most favorable from the perspective of economics, game theory, decentralization and freedom. Which happens to also be the original vision for Bitcoin.

But for that to be measured we need transparent devs putting out ideas and specialists and technicians verifying that, with actual proofs like whitepapers and scientific documentations.

Opinions dont matter here, bitcoin is science and it needs to be dealt with it that way. It's not a democracy sorry.

Bitcoin is a form of democracy, that is where I think you might be fundamentally mistaken. This is why subjective opinions do matter, it is what makes Bitcoin. We value decentralization and freedom for instance because they are subjective values, they are not scientific at all.

Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.

It has been shown scientifically that increasing the blocksize is possible. We have scientists and transparent developers doing exactly that, check out the work done by Bitcoin Unlimited recently with Xthin Blocks for instance, it is ground breaking work solving some of the last issues of scaling. Papers have been written and tests have been carried out. We could have easily increased the blocksize to two megabyte six months ago I do not think that anyone can argue from a scientific point of view that this was or still is impossible.

[Lauda]

I could also argue that maybe the Engineers should not fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin without listening very closely to the advice of economists and social scientists. It would be wise for the engineers to recognize that economics might not be their area of expertise.

They aren't, this is why Segwit is coming.

I also do not buy the whole idea that if Core says it is impossible it therefore must be impossible until of course they say that it is not. There are other engineers that are not within Core that are saying that we can scale Bitcoin directly, so faced with this contradiction by the technical experts I choose the path which is most favorable from the perspective of economics, game theory, decentralization and freedom. Which happens to also be the original vision for Bitcoin.

Core consists of tens of independent developer/engineers who have signed the roadmap. I'm telling you that it is impossible as well, I'm not part of Core so your 'idea/argument' has no merit. What are these "other engineers" that this so? How are they relevant? If you take Rizun or someone of such sort as an example, you should be classified as a joke and be put on ignore. I'd like to get a list of these "engineers", "experts" that think Bitcoin can scale directly (without sacrificing everything that it stands for) enough in order to become a mainstream currency. 10 000 tps would be a nice starting number.

[VeritasSapere]

I could also argue that maybe the Engineers should not fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin without listening very closely to the advice of economists and social scientists. It would be wise for the engineers to recognize that economics might not be their area of expertise.

They aren't, this is why Segwit is coming.

They most definitely are, that you can not recognize this is not helping your case. Even Jeff Garzick made this point very clear. In his article he is using technical language instead of political and economic language to make his point, this might be very good for people like you, I highly recommend you read it again if you have not already read it and then tell me earnestly that Jeff Garzick's observations hold no merit and that Core is not changing the economic policy of Bitcoin, it should be very obvious that that is exactly what they are doing.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

I also do not buy the whole idea that if Core says it is impossible it therefore must be impossible until of course they say that it is not. There are other engineers that are not within Core that are saying that we can scale Bitcoin directly, so faced with this contradiction by the technical experts I choose the path which is most favorable from the perspective of economics, game theory, decentralization and freedom. Which happens to also be the original vision for Bitcoin.

Core consists of tens of independent developer/engineers who have signed the roadmap. I'm telling you that it is impossible as well, I'm not part of Core so your 'idea/argument' has no merit.

For you to say that it is "impossible" to increase the block size limit until of course Core does it. I find ludicrous, I am sure that even highly technically inclined people would not take such a position seriously.

What are these "other engineers" that this so? How are they relevant? If you take Rizun or someone of such sort as an example, you should be classified as a joke and be put on ignore. I'd like to get a list of these "engineers", "experts" that think Bitcoin can scale directly (without sacrificing everything that it stands for) enough in order to become a mainstream currency. 10 000 tps would be a nice starting number.

It does not need to be all or nothing today, this is the nirvana fallacy that you still entertain. In regards to prominent developers that support a blocksize increase outside of Core, both Jeff Garzick and Gavin Andresen where both prominent members of Core to say the least before they left due to this disagreement. I do not think that you can say that these two people do not know what they are talking about, they most certainly do. Not to mention the many other less well known developers working presently for both Classic and Unlimited.

https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.49o143892

[brg444]

I do not consider off chain solutions to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all. We can scale Bitcoin directly, if Bitcoin will not do it alternative cryptocurrencies will. I do not see any reason why people would choose to use a layer build on top of the blockchain when they can just use the blockchain directly, easily, quickly and cheaply. Without the added complexion and abstraction that is required by having to use a third party on top of the blockchain in order to transact.

I think that you are fooling yourself if you think that Bitcoin can become the dominant currency of the world with high fees. Especially considering that it is not even a technological necessity yet. I accept that with far greater adoption this might be the case but blocking the growth in transaction volume now at this stage so early in its development will guarantee that Bitcoin will be outcompeted and obsolesced. I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above the average transaction volume, this way the blocksize limit serves its original purpose as an anti spam feature, not as an economic policy tool for central planning, wielded by a group of technocrats.

Being wrong for so long and so often must hurt the ego, mister "I'm kind of an history bluff". Funny you don't seem to be learning from history though