ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[franky1]

2mb is a good thing. it allows capacity to grow.. while also allowing segwit1mb to do their little experiments without hurting other nodes that have different implementations. because segwit will be able to send out signature data to those differing implementations and still be under 2mb..

lauda you have admitted to not knowing the realities of what will result from segwit..

you have admitted that a 1mb segwit(no sig) is the equivalent to more than 1mb of normal blocks(with sig) so you know deep down that having to send out sigs will end up bloating above 1mb. causing normal fullnodes to disregard that block unless they accept 2mb, just to be safe.

please please please stop trying to call people inferier to yourself when you have not done the research.
please dont call 99% of the community inferior because they simply wont follow your plan..

please realise that everyone wanting 2mb, will allow your segwit experiment to atleast launch without causing issues. and you can happily have fun playing with segwit1mb without controversy, and gives you actual real life experiment time to see the ramifications and features live. to then decide to up your limits later..

please think outside of the box of segwit and think of the whole community.. put down your blockstream paycheck and think of the bigger picture.

it seems you want dominance and think that bitcoin is an 'all or nothing' game.. please see the bigger picture.. think beyond your own plan and look at the whole picture

[marcus_of_augustus]

2mb is a good thing.
please please please stop trying to call people inferier to yourself when you have not done the research.
please dont call 99% of the community inferior because they simply wont follow your plan..

please realise that everyone wanting 2mb,

please think .

.. please see the bigger picture..

lol you guise ... first you wanted 20MB tomorrow!!, then you said "Oh miners want 8MB" ... now it's down on knees begging please please for 2MB ... you have no clue what you want unless GovCoin has there hand up your backside telling you which way to nod your head and when your lips can move and what to say you want ... wait you want free shit? coders who will work for free, free transactions forever, free software that will never need maintenance ... welcome to reality.

Free as in freedom, not as as in beer. Suck it up. this thing has got a ways to play out, watch out for false prophets. Mike Hearn's got your XT/Classic back, yeah the guy standing right there with the banksters knife ready to stick it in ...

[franky1]

lol you guise ... first you wanted 20MB tomorrow!!, then you said "Oh miners want 8MB" ... now it's down on knees begging please please for 2MB ... you have no clue what you want unless GovCoin has there hand up your backside telling you which way to nod your head and when your lips can move and what to say you want ... wait you want free shit? coders who will work for free, free transactions forever, free software that will never need maintenance ... welcome to reality.

Free as in freedom, not as as in beer. Suck it up. this thing has got a ways to play out, watch out for false prophets. Mike Hearn's got your XT/Classic back, yeah the guy standing right there with the banksters knife ready to stick it in ...

i havnt bothered with XT or classic. i have my own implementation that i set to 2mb as that seems to be what the consensus limit is turning out to be..
people hated 20, hated 8. but willing to try 2.. and it was only then that gavcoin decided to go with 2 aswell.. (after the fact)

so i hope that there are atleast 20 different implementations all allowing atleast 2mb so that bitcoin can grow without having to rely on just one candidate, that way everyone is happy, even the segwit1mb crew will be happy because they get to play around too, without killing off other implementations.

[Amph]

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).

my point is that all those are not as important as the main issue here, you see them as a mandatory now and see the block limit as a bonus, i see all this as the opposite

those are the real bonus and the block limit is the main concern, fixing malleability for example, is not even so important if merchants are not even willing to accept zero confirmation for the time being

also segwit is not even 2mb, but 1.75, i still need to see why they think that 1.75 will suffice for a certain time-frame(which is for obvious reasons smaller than with 2mb), when we have already saturated 1mb

[Stringer Bell]

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.

Common sense, refreshing

[iCEBREAKER]

F2Pool CTO discusses thresholds with core devs: 75% not enough. Wants 95%

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451#issuecomment-172346251

Tooministas deeply saddened.

[Lauda]

my point is that all those are not as important as the main issue here, you see them as a mandatory now and see the block limit as a bonus, i see all this as the opposite

those are the real bonus and the block limit is the main concern, fixing malleability for example, is not even so important if merchants are not even willing to accept zero confirmation for the time being

when we have already saturated 1mb

Do you have a degree in engineering or any other relevant fields? I'm certain that you don't and thus how are you going to judge what is more important? The network is not saturated at the moment, we occasionally have full blocks and that is it. Out of the last 30 blocks 7 were above 900kB (Blocktrail, blocks: 393849 - 393878). That's only 23% of total blocks mined in this period that could be considered as saturated.

also segwit is not even 2mb, but 1.75

Where did you get this information from?

F2Pool CTO discusses thresholds with core devs: 75% not enough. Wants 95%

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451#issuecomment-172346251

That makes a lot of sense. Anything under should be considered invalid and an attempt to harm the network.

[iCEBREAKER]

First Hearn becomes a laughingstock, now Classic.  What a great start to the new year!

[Amph]

my point is that all those are not as important as the main issue here, you see them as a mandatory now and see the block limit as a bonus, i see all this as the opposite

those are the real bonus and the block limit is the main concern, fixing malleability for example, is not even so important if merchants are not even willing to accept zero confirmation for the time being

when we have already saturated 1mb

Do you have a degree in engineering or any other relevant fields? I'm certain that you don't and thus how are you going to judge what is more important? The network is not saturated at the moment, we occasionally have full blocks and that is it. Out of the last 30 blocks 7 were above 900kB (Blocktrail, blocks: 393849 - 393878). That's only 23% of total blocks mined in this period that could be considered as saturated.

also segwit is not even 2mb, but 1.75

Where did you get this information from?

F2Pool CTO discusses thresholds with core devs: 75% not enough. Wants 95%

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451#issuecomment-172346251

That makes a lot of sense. Anything under should be considered invalid and an attempt to harm the network.

are you trying to imply that 23% is a low %? is already a big %, and anyway at 700kb you have already a block which is saturated, there is no 1024kb of free space as many believe, it is actually less when multisig is used, for example...

segwit it's 1.75mb effectively, as average, some say as minimum, i still need to find who is lying here

some reference on the actual capacity increase http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html, we need to consider an increase in usage of multisig in the future, so 2MB it's not the real capacity

and btw i don't need any degree for those stuff really, google is there to help anybody

[Lauda]

are you trying to imply that 23% is a low %? is already a big %, and anyway at 700kb you have already a block which is saturated, there is no 1024kb of free space as many believe, it is actually less when multisig is used, for example...

Definition of saturated:

being a solution that is unable to absorb or dissolve any more of a solute at a given temperature and pressure

700kB is not saturated. Only a full block is saturated. Yes, 23% is a low percentage and nothing to worry about ATM (not saying that it won't get worse).

and btw i don't need any degree for those stuff really, google is there to help anybody

Of course you need a degree, why else would anyone study any of those fields if Google is sufficient?

segwit it's 1.75mb effectively, as average, some say as minimum, i still need to find who is lying here
some reference on the actual capacity increase http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html, we need to consider an increase in usage of multisig in the future, so 2MB it's not the real capacity

I've asked developers on IRC right now. It depends on the usage and the type of transactions. If everyone was using SegWit then the actual increase would equal to 2.5MB (block size increase). Pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions result in a smaller increase,  pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) txs result in a larger increase in block size.
Here's the updated math from the same person.

[WestHarrison]

I really hope that many of the statements made by some of the important figures in the Bitcoin space were made in the heat of the moment due to the Hearn's Margin Short Rage Quit and eventually they will realize that ToominCoin has no way to even maintain the code what with their 5 devs vs the legion of Core collaborators.

[Amph]

are you trying to imply that 23% is a low %? is already a big %, and anyway at 700kb you have already a block which is saturated, there is no 1024kb of free space as many believe, it is actually less when multisig is used, for example...

Definition of saturated:

being a solution that is unable to absorb or dissolve any more of a solute at a given temperature and pressure

700kB is not saturated. Only a full block is saturated. Yes, 23% is a low percentage and nothing to worry about ATM (not saying that it won't get worse).

again it depend on what type of address are used, with multisig is satured(full) at 670kb already, and only 1.33mb with segwitness, read in that link that i've posted, but i think you know that already

also 23% is not a low amount by any means, that would be a disaster on a large scale, we are lucky that bitcoin is still young and small, and the vast majority of the average joe(which are the real backbone, if ever this thing will be adopted) do not use bitcoin yet

[Lauda]

again it depend on what type of address are used, with multisig is satured(full) at 670kb already, and only 1.33mb with segwitness, read in that link that i've posted, but i think you know that already

You officially have no idea what you're talking about and are not making any sense at all. How can it be saturated with SegWit which is not even implemented? 700kB is not saturated as there is more room until 1MB. Admit to being wrong and we can move on.

also 23% is not a low amount by any means, that would be a disaster on a large scale, we are lucky that bitcoin is still young and small, and the vast majority of the average joe(which are the real backbone, if ever this thing will be adopted) do not use bitcoin yet

Of course this is false. 23% of the network doesn't scale up with the number of users. 23% of the network is still 23% regardless if there are 10 or 10 million users (because it is 23% of i.e. the current network). There is no saturation, congestion or whatever you have been told.

eventually they will realize that ToominCoin has no way to even maintain the code what with their 5 devs vs the legion of Core collaborators.

The worst part of it is that they aren't even real developers, unless you think Peter Rizun will maintain the code. 

[WestHarrison]

My god I just saw for the first time that retarded voting idea they made for the inclusion or exclusion of features for the Bitcoin protocol.

[Amph]

again it depend on what type of address are used, with multisig is satured(full) at 670kb already, and only 1.33mb with segwitness, read in that link that i've posted, but i think you know that already

You officially have no idea what you're talking about and are not making any sense at all. How can it be saturated with SegWit which is not even implemented? 700kB is not saturated as there is more room until 1MB. Admit to being wrong and we can move on.

you're not following as usual, what have to do the fact that sigwit is not implemented with the whole stauration thing? you think that when it will be implemented the maximum block size at which it can be saturated will be higher? no sense

again it is not up to 1mb, you're wrong, it is 700 maximum as effective size, because you need to add multisig address in the equation, and they consume larger space, i believe you have not read the link that i've posted...

[johnyj]

You can't have 100% full block unless the mempool is always full, and even if the mempool is always full, there would still be empty blocks due to SPV mining (Miners start to mine empty blocks immediately when they receive a new block, they don't want to waste their hash power waiting for the previous block to finish verifying, so the new block must contain only one coinbase transaction because it does not know yet which transactions in mempool should be included)

[Lauda]

again it is not up to 1mb, you're wrong, it is 700 maximum as effective size, because you need to add multisig address in the equation, and they consume larger space, i believe you have not read the link that i've posted...

You're the one who's not following anything. I don't care what is within the block. I'm talking about saturation as in used space in comparison to empty space/total space. If we are talking about 1 MB then saturation is definitely not around 0.7MB.

You can't have 100% full block unless the mempool is always full, and even if the mempool is always full, there would still be empty blocks due to SPV mining (Miners start to mine empty blocks immediately when they receive a new block, they don't want to waste their hash power waiting for the previous block to finish verifying, so the new block must contain only one coinbase transaction because it does not know yet which transactions in mempool should be included)

I'm not talking about maximum saturation. However, one is wrong to say that the network is having problems right now (as shown with 23% of blocks being 'possibly' saturated).

[johnyj]

So far the mempool has not shown any abnormal growth, comparing with the spam attack during September. I think if we have the same level of mempool size like we had in September, then many nodes will either become highly streesed or lift the relay fee

[Amph]

also about the 23%, you misunderstood the thing as usual, i did not mean that there will be a greater %, but that the same percentage, would be noticed more, because there will be more users, that will use bitcoin with a greater adoption

so you will have more people complaining about the slowest transaction, and delay,not good, so yes 23% will be a in issue

and anyway 23% of future bigger block is equal to more transactions being stuck than 23% of current block, you know...

again it is not up to 1mb, you're wrong, it is 700 maximum as effective size, because you need to add multisig address in the equation, and they consume larger space, i believe you have not read the link that i've posted...

You're the one who's not following anything. I don't care what is within the block. I'm talking about saturation as in used space in comparison to empty space/total space. If we are talking about 1 MB then saturation is definitely not around 0.7MB.

i'm talking instead about the effective space that can be filled, and again it's not 1mb

[Lauda]

also about the 23%, you misunderstood the thing as usual, i did not mean that there will be a greater %, but that the same percentage, would be noticed more, because there will be more users, that will use bitcoin with a greater adoption

so you will have more people complaining about the slowest transaction, and delay,not good, so yes 23% will be a in issue

You're wrong again. In that case the percentage would rise, else there would not be an increased delay. If the percentage doesn't increase that means that the number of transactions has stagnated or became smaller.
I'm still uncertain how your lack of understanding of Math is relevant to Bitcoin Classic?

i'm talkint instead about the effective space that can be filled, and again it's not 1mb

Of course it is 1 MB (technically not exactly 1 MB but close), we've recently had a 976.4 kB block.

So far the mempool has not shown any abnormal growth, comparing with the spam attack during September. I think if we have the same level of mempool size like we had in September, then many nodes will either become highly streesed or lift the relay fee

Which means that we are fine for now.
Update:
I give up and have put Amph back on ignore.