ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[iCEBREAKER]

Even if the Tooministas win, they lose.

[1715033941]

1715033941

[1715033941]

1715033941

[1715033941]

1715033941

[iCEBREAKER]

[DeathAngel]

Good work! We need to make people aware that Bitcoin Core is the way to go. All these power hungry defecters need to get lost.

[iCEBREAKER]

[franky1]

imagine if there were 20 user based bitcoin programs all with different user features and all with different names

all with signature checking, tx checking blockchecking rules and all allowing upto 2mb blocks

now imagine miners sent out 1mb blocks.. all 20 user clients would receive the blocks fine and not fork. all blocks can be checked, validated, no fuss

but...now imagine a miner was 2mbSegWit
1) these by default dont send signatures unless getting special request only by other segwits.. so 19 other programs only receive uncheckable(no sig) transactions/blocks. and have no clue how to handle them so relay them on without any checks..

2) if the segwit miner changed to send sigs by default and sends out 1mb blocks(1.5mb real life data). all 20 programs would receive the blocks. able to check them and total data still below 2mb and so no fork...

3)but when the segwit miner thinks it is sending out 2mb, its actually sending out 3mb as the segwit doesnt count signatures as data.. and so 19 programs will invalidate them blocks instantly.


segwit can not guarantee (2) will happen every time and so segwit will not work.

i am all for there being 1000 different fullnode client versions. as long as they are all ultimately open and compatible to take and understand the data given to them and data they are relaying out. (all follow a basic rule protocol outline) EG not hide signatures by default

[iCEBREAKER]

Hearn's Avengers don't want to develop their own coin anymore than the XT and Unlimited hosers did.

They want to hijack Core, repurpose its roadmap to suit Coinbase's business markitecture requirements, and still expect Core's devs to keep working.

Adam Back is wrecking _Classic on twitter.  His best point so far is that _Classic is self-defeating, in that if its tyranny of the majority succeeds in taking out Core it necessarily takes Bitcoin's (experiment in) antifragility with it.

Then there is the fact _Classic is saying such stupid things it makes the small block militia's job easy....

Henry Brade ‏@Technom4ge
@Koopake @adam3us @virtuallylaw @morcosa The update in Classic is extremely simple and safe, not much testing needed.

"Not much testing needed" is an instant comedy classic.  Memes in 3, 2, 1....

Henry Brade ‏@Technom4ge 4h4 hours ago
@adam3us I'm willing to risk it all purely on principle and the faith that there will be developers even if there aren't many now.

Principle and Faith^® will save _Classic from Evil Core!  You read it here first!


This new generation of TumorBlocker lolcows is even more unintentionally hilarious than our beloved old herd of XT and Unlimited Gavinistas.

I guess we have to thank Hearn's timely, high-profile martyrdom for agitating the Tooministas into such an incoherent froth.  

[forevernoob]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

[keepdoing]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

Nope - they never were.  ALL Lying propoganda.  They delete and censor antyhing they don't like.  I've had 3 posts deleted from this discussion already.

[franky1]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

segwit will cause forks by:
1. not sending out signature data. which makes other clients limp and flacid
2. when sending signatures. it pretends to send 2mb of tx data but actually sends 3mb

if all the different implementations just agreed on 2mb (not 4, not then segwit will still screw over the other implementations. and that is what segwit wants.. dominance. forcing people to upgrade to segwit instead of the freedom to use any implementation they want.

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

You are either with the Blockchain Alliance or with the blockchain criminals....

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

Nope - they never were.  ALL Lying propoganda.  They delete and censor antyhing they don't like.  I've had 3 posts deleted from this discussion already.

This is a self-moderated thread.  You've had the exact same altcoin advertisment deleted four five times.  Start your own thread and stop posting here.

[forevernoob]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

Nope - they never were.  ALL Lying propoganda.  They delete and censor antyhing they don't like.  I've had 3 posts deleted from this discussion already.

I know for a fact that they didn't like BIP101.
And I know Andreas has said nice things about SegWit.

[franky1]

1. I know for a fact that they didn't like BIP101.
2, And I know Andreas has said nice things about SegWit.

1. 8mb was too high straight off the cuff.. it needs to be be gradual
2. andrea's said about all the uptopian possibilities but if you listen to the basic descriptions and put them into real life scenario's of today.. the negatives do not outweigh the positives.

EG
if segwit went for 2mb... every other implementation and different bitcoin program would need to have atleast a 3mb, possibly 4mb limit just to cover whatever segwit miners sent out as their faked 2mb data limit

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

Nope - they never were.  ALL Lying propoganda.  They delete and censor antyhing they don't like.  I've had 3 posts deleted from this discussion already.

I know for a fact that they didn't like BIP101.
And I know Andreas has said nice things about SegWit.

Gavin and several other ToominCoiners also said nice things about SegWit.  That's inevitably going to create rifts in the _Classic community.  

It's hard to be against paying technical debt, especially if doing so resolves the tx malleability problem, especially if you are a merchant/payment provider.

[Lauda]

And I know Andreas has said nice things about SegWit.

Because SegWit is very nice and doesn't require much code actually.
Is this a part 2, after the XT #R3KT thread? Those quoted on twitter are excellent and Adam is right.

-snip-

Your understanding of SegWit is flawed, deeply.

[iCEBREAKER]

-snip-

Your understanding of SegWit is flawed, deeply.

Shhh...let the anti-segwit Toomincoiners FUD to their hearts' content.  Tell them they are right.

Anything that helps sow disagreement and controversy in the enemy camp is to be encouraged.   

[brg444]

I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?

I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.

segwit will cause forks by:
1. not sending out signature data. which makes other clients limp and flacid
2. when sending signatures. it pretends to send 2mb of tx data but actually sends 3mb

if all the different implementations just agreed on 2mb (not 4, not then segwit will still screw over the other implementations. and that is what segwit wants.. dominance. forcing people to upgrade to segwit instead of the freedom to use any implementation they want.

franky1 how about you go over to #bitcoin-dev on freenode and ask someone to lay it down for you. Even gmaxwell is there right now!

it's clear you don't grok it and any time you attempt to debunk it you confuse yourself even more.

[brg444]

Speaking of the return of the prodigal son.... surely there's some memes in there 





Stick a beard on it!

[franky1]

i now await lauda's detailed and technical description of how segwit actually works

...
wait ill predict it
....
"here i have a picture of several utopian possibility with no technical definition.. but look at the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
hang on.. i have another prediction
"you may have read the conference minutes, you may even watched the video, you may have read the technicals, you may have seen/heard gmaxwell and andrea's talk about it in human terms.. but i will still say you are wrong and tell you to go look at the picture of utopian dreams, so look at the picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

so come on.. get technical.. answer 2 questions
1.. signatures not relayed by default... ?
...... wait.. be careful what lies you say as i can quote pieter wuille and andreas..

2. the fake 2mb block limit is actually more than 2mb of real world data (if you include signatures)..
it is only ever going to be 2mb of real world data for a 2mb block if..IF EVERY transaction was done by everyone using only Segwit..(where sigs are obsolete and segwit rules the world of bitcoin)

i truly do understand the utopian possibilities it can bring.. but they do not outweigh the negatives and should not be trying to hide away the negatives

[brg444]

i truly do understand

Yes we know

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



Walls of the bandwagon crumbling already