ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[marcus_of_augustus]

Gavin coding SPV mining into Classic
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1402118.0

 

So the "nothing but Core with a 2MB block change" classic party line is turning into a load of total BS.

It is, and always was, all about politics.

[1714034330]

1714034330

[1714034330]

1714034330

[Lauda]

So the "nothing but Core with a 2MB block change" classic party line is turning into a load of total BS.
It is, and always was, all about politics.

It was always a power grab and nothing more. It seems like Gavin misses the old days when he was in charge. This reminds me of XT, slipping in features without actually discussing them and falsely promoting the implementation. Meanwhile, Core is actually doing something useful (BIP 9 just got merged).

Next feature to be coded into Classic will be a button saying "give all your coins to NSA".

Where are my 20 MB urgent blocks from 2015? 

[QuestionAuthority]

So, were there any great discoveries or solutions included in these giant walls or are we just trying to keep the Mexicans out?

Basically just piles of evidence that Classic is a horrible "solution" that threatens to break bitcoin for nothing.

CORE:  50+ Bitcoin specialists, PhDs , Engineers, Programmers, Technicians  and many academic professors support them.

CLASSIC: 2 Bitcoin 'specialists' who havent contributed much to bitcoin over the past years + An army of socialists and shills who want free lunch and free transactions



Let's see which team is more credible.

Thanks you two for the breakdown. That's pretty much the way I see it too.

[QuestionAuthority]

Gavin coding SPV mining into Classic
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1402118.0

 

You gotta be shittin me. Andresen gets more fucked up and out of touch with reality every day. So much for "we're only changing this one itty bitty thing, I promise" with his fingers crossed behind his back.

[hdbuck]

Gavin coding SPV mining into Classic
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1402118.0

 

You gotta be shittin me. Andresen gets more fucked up and out of touch with reality every day. So much for "we're only changing this one itty bitty thing, I promise" with his fingers crossed behind his back.

[watashi-kokoto]

You gotta be shittin me. Andresen gets more fucked up and out of touch with reality every day. So much for "we're only changing this one itty bitty thing, I promise" with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Didn't expect to read this of you.

[QuestionAuthority]

You gotta be shittin me. Andresen gets more fucked up and out of touch with reality every day. So much for "we're only changing this one itty bitty thing, I promise" with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Didn't expect to read this of you.

God I miss MPOE-PR. She'd be all over this thread explaining in great detail how stupid some of you are. She had the patience, stamina and resolve to do it and I just don't have it anymore.

[watashi-kokoto]

God I miss MPOE-PR. She'd be all over this thread explaining in great detail how stupid some of you are. She had the patience, stamina and resolve to do it and I just don't have it anymore.

You see, yes the "Classic" people could be up on something, I feel that some Core devs may be corrupted, there may be something out there, something to stall or slow down developement. But what am I supposed to do about it? Cry that Bitcoin is corrupted? Shill nonstop brigade for an alternative dev team?

Especially when all two of Classic developers both seem terminally retarded?

It's simpler to call out which one of Core devs is corrupt or slows down developement, how do they do this than spend years trolling around on custom forum.

[WestHarrison]

God I miss MPOE-PR. She'd be all over this thread explaining in great detail how stupid some of you are. She had the patience, stamina and resolve to do it and I just don't have it anymore.

You see, yes the "Classic" people could be up on something, I feel that some Core devs may be corrupted, there may be something out there, something to stall or slow down developement. But what am I supposed to do about it? Cry that Bitcoin is corrupted? Shill nonstop brigade for an alternative dev team?

Especially when all two of Classic developers both seem terminally retarded?

It's simpler to call out which one of Core devs is corrupt or slows down developement, how do they do this than spend years trolling around on custom forum.

This is far too logical for the DataCenterCoin people.

[Lauda]

Source: http://coinjournal.net/coo-samson-mow-btccs-support-of-bitcoin-core-is-a-no-brainer/
At least some people get it right.

Especially when all two of Classic developers both seem terminally retarded?

But they told me Classic was Core with only a 2 MB block size limit   

echochambering your positions and deleting every post that could make you look bad.

That's how self moderated threads function. The author is allowed to delete any post for whatever reason.

[iCEBREAKER]

Source: http://coinjournal.net/coo-samson-mow-btccs-support-of-bitcoin-core-is-a-no-brainer/
At least some people get it right.

Mow thinks the Bitcoin community should simply allow the Bitcoin Core contributors to get back to work. He stated, “I think what we need to do is give the Core team time to write the code . . . These debates and the drama takes time away from them, and it slows the developers down.”

Classic formula for success:

1. Slow down development with debates and drama
2. Complain about slow development
3.
4. Profit!

[Bitcoinbro]

Source: http://coinjournal.net/coo-samson-mow-btccs-support-of-bitcoin-core-is-a-no-brainer/
At least some people get it right.

Mow thinks the Bitcoin community should simply allow the Bitcoin Core contributors to get back to work. He stated, “I think what we need to do is give the Core team time to write the code . . . These debates and the drama takes time away from them, and it slows the developers down.”

Classic formula for success:

1. Slow down development with debates and drama
2. Complain about slow development
3.
4. Profit!

Well i do hope the developers can focus on what they do best.
Developing features, instead of participating in heavy debates which lead to nothing.

The problem with the block size is something that have been addressed a few times but needs a lot of time 'developing.'

[MeteoImpact]

Source: http://coinjournal.net/coo-samson-mow-btccs-support-of-bitcoin-core-is-a-no-brainer/
At least some people get it right.

Mow thinks the Bitcoin community should simply allow the Bitcoin Core contributors to get back to work. He stated, “I think what we need to do is give the Core team time to write the code . . . These debates and the drama takes time away from them, and it slows the developers down.”

Classic formula for success:

1. Slow down development with debates and drama
2. Complain about slow development
3.
4. Profit!

So of course, most of the comments on that article on its website are along the lines of, "Blockstream is the evil empire!" Fantastic. No arguments you make or facts you present can breach that wall of ignorance. Blockstream people like gmaxwell can post ad infinitum saying things like:

...something something blockstream blocked a blocksize increase...

No, not blockstream people (go look for proposals from Blockstream people-- there are several blocksize hardforks suggested). Because of the constant toxic abuse, most of us have backed away from Bitcoin Core involvement in any case.

But it doesn't matter, because in their heads, Blockstream is still somehow in control of and scheming to destroy everything.

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin can scale and if it does not scale then it will simply be out competed and obsolesced by alternative cryptocurrencies that can and are willing to scale. Since the security, value and utility of cryptocurrencies increase with scale, it is this virtuous cycle that was also the original vision for Bitcoin, this is the vision that Core is now diverging from.

The ad hominem attacks against the people behind the different implementations are irrelevant, what matters is what is in the code itself and Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have all of the features that Core 0.12 has plus more, it is the nature of open source. The people behind Core might be great coders but I think their conception of the economics and governance of Bitcoin is wrong. Through the choice of multiple implementations the participants of the network get to choose which path Bitcoin takes. I would hope that the economic majority within Bitcoin will choose to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly as was always intended, since otherwise I suspect Bitcoin might become the myspace of cryptocurrency.

I can take this further however, if the economic majority does want the blocksize to be increased and it is not increased then I would say that the governance mechanism within Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed, solutions for the problems Bitcoin is experiencing most likely already exists in the alternative cryptocurrencies, innovations such as incentivized full nodes and self funding blockchains might be important in that regard.

It is still to early to tell whether this first real experiment in decentralized governance will function the way we hope it will. Bitcoin might be dying because of this existential crisis but I am confident that the more it dies so to speak, the more pressure will build for it to change. This is part of the game theory underpinning the governance of Bitcoin. I just hope more of us come to this realization before Bitcoin loses its position as the dominant cryptocurrency.

[AlexGR]

Bitcoin might be dying

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-chains-longer-than-100?showDataPoints=false&timespan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

[RealBitcoin]

900 Unconfirmed now, it's a very fluid network now.

Looks like if nobody is attacking the network, it all works fine.

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin might be dying

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-chains-longer-than-100?showDataPoints=false&timespan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

Almost exponential transaction volume growth until recently, because we have hit the blocksize limit. Watching the alt-coin market rise while Bitcoin stagnates.

[VeritasSapere]

900 Unconfirmed now, it's a very fluid network now.

Looks like if nobody is attacking the network, it all works fine.

Whenever the network does get congested people leave and different use cases are pushed out, demand will stay aligned with the artificial scarcity enforced through the blocksize limit. This process can continue until Bitcoin is not the dominant cryptocurrency anymore, even then you might be able to say that the blocksize never needed to be increased, while cryptocurrencies that are willing to scale will overtake Bitcoin.

Allowing the network to get congested makes transacting on the Bitcoin network more expensive and less reliable, this is not good for adoption especially considering that we could just increase the blocksize to two megabytes, most alt-coins already have far greater transactional throughput when compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin does need to be able to compete.

[RealBitcoin]

900 Unconfirmed now, it's a very fluid network now.

Looks like if nobody is attacking the network, it all works fine.

Whenever the network does get congested people leave and different use cases are pushed out, demand will stay aligned with the artificial scarcity enforced through the blocksize limit. This process can continue until Bitcoin is not the dominant cryptocurrency anymore, even then you might be able to say that the blocksize never needed to be increased, while cryptocurrencies that are willing to scale will overtake Bitcoin.

Allowing the network to get congested makes transacting on the Bitcoin network more expensive and less reliable, this is not good for adoption especially considering that we could just increase the blocksize to two megabytes, most alt-coins already have far greater transactional throughput when compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin does need to be able to compete.

There is a technical limit that reputable engineers are saying us.

Your words and opinions mean nothing, either you have data supporting your opinions or you are just talking to yourself.


The technical limit is artificial, it could be 1.1 mb or 0.8 mb or 1.111 mb, doesnt matter. The point is that the smaller the blocksize the better, because Moore's law is pseudoscience, and all growth functions tent to be logarithmic, not exponential.

While you want an exponentially increasing blocksize, it will fail. But of course you havent checked the data, you are just pulling out ideas from your ass.

[jbreher]

But they told me Classic was Core with only a 2 MB block size limit   

It was. Well, that plus a nice guard against malevolently-created blocks. A couple of releases ago. But there have been improvements since. Do try to keep up.