ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Cconvert2G36]

Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.

Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable."  Not even a little bit!

It's so unreasonable that iCE doesn't even have to furiously type away against it. 

but it is stupidly simple enough to suck in the punters .... hence the typing.

The punters that run PH/s?

[johnyj]

Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now

[Lauda]

Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now

This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant.

[Cconvert2G36]

Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now

This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant.

Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping.

[Lauda]

Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping.

Just because they know how to make hardware that does not meant that are familiar with software engineering nor that they're good at it (hence why it is almost impossible for a person to be an engineer of both sorts). However, this is not even remotely related to my post. I was talking about the users. 2 MB blocks could be engineered so that they take longer than 10 minutes to validate (that would be a 'fun' scenario if Classic takes off).

[Cconvert2G36]

Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping.

Just because they know how to make hardware that does not meant that are familiar with software engineering nor that they're good at it (hence why it is almost impossible for a person to be an engineer of both sorts). However, this is not even remotely related to my post. I was talking about the users. 2 MB blocks could be engineered so that they take longer than 10 minutes to validate (that would be a 'fun' scenario if Classic takes off).

Such an attack could be easily disallowed by the protocol. Not to mention it's completely illogical from a miner's perspective. But you already knew that...

And yeah, BitFury haz no softwarez engineering talentz. 

[Lauda]

Such an attack could be easily disallowed by the protocol. Not to mention it's completely illogical from a miner's perspective. But you already knew that...

Disallowed? That would mean you would have to disable a certain type of blocks/transactions which would be a very bad move considering what Bitcoin stands for. Illogical from a miner's perspective? Not if I spend a couple of BTC in fees; they would not ignore it. A similar block was mined by F2Pool last year (IIRC).

[Cconvert2G36]

Such an attack could be easily disallowed by the protocol. Not to mention it's completely illogical from a miner's perspective. But you already knew that...

Disallowed? That would mean you would have to disable a certain type of blocks/transactions which would be a very bad move considering what Bitcoin stands for. Illogical from a miner's perspective? Not if I spend a couple of BTC in fees; they would not ignore it. A similar block was mined by F2Pool last year (IIRC).

I won't be lectured as to what Bitcoin "stands for" by the crowd that is using a malicious miner DDoS limit from 2010 as an economic policy tool to benefit Blockstream™. Come back to me when you do a little research and discover why F2Pool mined that block.

[Lauda]

I won't be lectured as to what Bitcoin "stands for" by the crowd that is using a malicious miner DDoS limit from 2010 as an economic policy tool to benefit Blockstream™. Come back to me when you do a little research and discover why F2Pool mined that block.

The current situation does not benefit Blockstream, stop with the conspiracy nonsense that you've been filled with by the likes of Hearn. There's no need to do more research on that issue. It would be both funny and sad if someone were to manufacture such a block on the first day of Classic.  Even if we disregard this, scaling to 2 MB in comparison to SegWit is very redundant (because SegWit will increase the tps capacity to an equal level as standard 2 MB blocks would).

[Cconvert2G36]

I won't be lectured as to what Bitcoin "stands for" by the crowd that is using a malicious miner DDoS limit from 2010 as an economic policy tool to benefit Blockstream™. Come back to me when you do a little research and discover why F2Pool mined that block.

The current situation does not benefit Blockstream, stop with the conspiracy nonsense that you've been filled with by the likes of Hearn. There's no need to do more research on that issue. It would be both funny and sad if someone were to manufacture such a block on the first day of Classic.  Even if we disregard this, scaling to 2 MB in comparison to SegWit is very redundant (because SegWit will increase the tps capacity to an equal level as standard 2 MB blocks would).

Personally, I'm glad Hearn did his little farewell "fuck you". His agenda was too aggressive and would never satisfy a broad consensus of miners. He said his piece and he is done, he didn't just whip his cape and go into seclusion for a month or two. I'm thankful for bitcoinJ, but his approach, especially towards chinese miners, and yes, some fellow devs, was quite unproductive.

I'll drop the conspiracy nonsense if you tell me how Blockstream intends to pay back the $21 million... and give their VC benefactors an ROI, and why a crippled and expensive main chain wouldn't incubate that plan.

Classic is #R3KT right?? So no worries there... I bet they haven't even considered malicious miner attacks and DDoS'ing from the real socieconomic majority.

[iCEBREAKER]

Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now

This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant.

Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping.

Please clarify whether BitFury is in favor of plain old non-segwit 2MB blocks, or 2MB tx + 6MB witness blocks.  And what about RBF/CLTV?

You do know which it is, right?  I'm sure you would never presume to advocate for a third party's position on which you are not perfectly clear.

[Cconvert2G36]

Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now

This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant.

Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping.

Please clarify whether BitFury is in favor of plain old non-segwit 2MB blocks, or 2MB tx + 6MB witness blocks.  And what about RBF/CLTV?

You do know which it is, right?  I'm sure you would never presume to advocate for a third party's position on which you are not perfectly clear.

I'm not advocating for any third party. My interests are my own as a long time participant and investor in BTC.

This is the only info I have directly from BitFury:

[Amph]

Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now

This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant.

as i see it is the opposite, choosing segwit, over 2m appear to be redundant sinc eit's the same thing, better to implement 2mb directly, and find another solution for the future, becasue none of those solution are final anyway

[Lauda]

as i see it is the opposite, choosing segwit, over 2m appear to be redundant sinc eit's the same thing, better to implement 2mb directly, and find another solution for the future, becasue none of those solution are final anyway

I have only recently unignored you and it seems that I have made a mistake. You have no clue what you're talking about. SegWit is not about a capacity increase, that increase is a bonus that comes with it.

I'll drop the conspiracy nonsense if you tell me how Blockstream intends to pay back the $21 million... and give their VC benefactors an ROI, and why a crippled and expensive main chain wouldn't incubate that plan.

You're asking me how a company that I have no relationship with plans to ROI? You're asking the wrong person (although my guess would be offering custom sidechains to companies/similar other ways). If Bitcoin becomes centralized or expensive to use it is most likely going to be barely used at all.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm not advocating for any third party. My interests are my own as a long time participant and investor in BTC.

This is the only info I have directly from BitFury:

So you don't have the faintest idea whether or not Bitfury supports RBF/CLTV/SEGWIT/Lightning/sidechains, yet still presume their interests congruent to your own.

Thank you for illustrating exactly why _Classic is already #REKT, and why Valery should stick to making low level decisions in Verilog.

[Amph]

as i see it is the opposite, choosing segwit, over 2m appear to be redundant sinc eit's the same thing, better to implement 2mb directly, and find another solution for the future, becasue none of those solution are final anyway

I have only recently unignored you and it seems that I have made a mistake. You have no clue what you're talking about. SegWit is not about a capacity increase, that increase is a bonus that comes with it.

yes i know that it offer something else, but the capacity is the most important thing and the only one that matter, so what is your point here? other solutions also offer added things, but as i see it those are the real bonus not the capacity itself

[Lauda]

yes i know that it offer something else, but the capacity is the most important thing and the only one that matter, so what is your point here?

Here you go again, talking nonsense. Fixing malleability, enabling far simpler script upgrades, fraud proofs should be considered as 'something else'?  

other solutions also offer added things, but as i see it those are the real bonus not the capacity itself

No, they don't. 2 MB does not offer anything if we disregard the increase tps (which SegWit achieves as a bonus).

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'll drop the conspiracy nonsense if you tell me how Blockstream intends to pay back the $21 million... and give their VC benefactors an ROI,

are you also asking the tens of other VC funded companies in the bitcoin space how they are expecting to supply ROI on the over $1 billion has been sunk in?

I've seen some pretty hokey business models that I wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole, and you'd need some far out conspiracy theories to explain how the heck they got funded .... Blockstream looks like a damned solid investment to me in that light, I'd be buying shares if they were public.

You whole spiel is based on some naive arrogance that you know that the Core devs are hell bent on ruining Bitcoin infrastructure because a few of them work for Blockstream who don't have a business model for ROI on a measly $21 mill, seriously ... what about the other 32++ devs who ACKed the capacity increase roadmap, were they taken over by brain downloads directly from Blockstream servers and are now just meat puppet drones following the wishes of the blockstream overlords?

[iCEBREAKER]

Okay great. Here come the big guns. Bye, bye!



There is a reason we don't use consider.it to design space shuttles...



...but that reason is beyond the ken of Toominista contentious hard fork advocates.

[Lauda]

and here is lauda trying to push segwit with all of his powers of persuasion yet again..

Wrong. I sent a picture of your previous post asking me to explain two points to Bitcoin-dev on IIRC and they (maaku in specific) said it was completely false. Stop spreading nonsense; I advise you once again to go there and ask your questions.

what about the other 32++ devs who ACKed the capacity increase roadmap, were they taken over by brain downloads directly from Blockstream servers and are now just meat puppet drones following the wishes of the blockstream overlords?

They must be all working for Blockstream.  
Update:
franky1: I will give you 1 more chance before I put you on the ignore list (you seem to be ignoring the suggestions repeatedly and not doing anything). Either get the proper explanation on IRC (this is all you have to do), or stop spreading nonsense. I won't bother with this again.