ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[franky1]

2mb ToominBlocks will be filled instantly, because of the massive, irresistible financial incentive to short ToominCoins.  Everyone will be doing it.

miners have already proven that even if there are 10,000 tx's waiting.. they are not going to throw every transaction into a block.
if there was a 95% consensus for 2mb.. miners would wait a bit just to make sure its not a fluke of sybil attack by gavin and cohorts..
and once they see that it is 95% of genuine users wanting and able to accept 2mb.. then miners will upgrade..
but. their first block after the upgrade will be 1.000.250byte. as they dont want to push the luck of wasting too much time..
slowly over days weeks and months they will raise their preference up bit by bit..

just like miners who have had 1mb limit for a few years now have had preferential settings below 1mb.. so dont expect instant jump to 2mb.. because the fee's wont be worth it.

imagine it.. fee=4cent.. which on 4000 lean transactions is only $160..
do you really think miners are going to suddenly throw 8000 tx's at a block instantly.. risking $10,000 block reward.. just for the sake of $320..

there is no logic at all to jump straight to full 2mb.. but there is logic to slowly do
4001tx
4002tx
and so increasing incrementally when they find they can comfortably handle it.

and as for a malicious person doing a single tx with large amount of data..
most miners would ignore it just as they ignore 0fee transactions(because they can), if its going to risk their chance of the $10,000 block reward..

and anyone wanting to try bribing a miner into doing a single tx of 1mb.. would need to have fee's of a few thousand dollars.. which as afew have said would cause delay for 10 minutes.. which if you look into the recent past.. no one really screams blue murder if a block takes 12 minutes..

and do you think that the malicious user could continue making these large transactions if it costs thousands each time.. nope.. their money will dry out first.

so its just scaremongering and not seeing the reality of scenario's

[iCEBREAKER]

2mb ToominBlocks will be filled instantly, because of the massive, irresistible financial incentive to short ToominCoins.  Everyone will be doing it.

miners have already proven that even if there are 10,000 tx's waiting.. they are not going to throw every transaction into a block.
if there was a 95% consensus for 2mb.. miners would wait a bit just to make sure its not a fluke of sybil attack by gavin and cohorts..
and once they see that it is 95% of genuine users wanting and able to accept 2mb.. then miners will upgrade..
but. their first block after the upgrade will be 1.000.250byte. as they dont want to push the luck of wasting too much time..
slowly over days weeks and months they will raise their preference up bit by bit..

just like miners who have had 1mb limit for a few years now have had preferential settings below 1mb.. so dont expect instant jump to 2mb.. because the fee's wont be worth it.

imagine it.. fee=4cent.. which on 4000 lean transactions is only $160..
do you really think miners are going to suddenly throw 8000 tx's at a block instantly.. risking $10,000 block reward.. just for the sake of $320..

there is no logic at all to jump straight to full 2mb.. but there is logic to slowly do
4001tx
4002tx
and so increasing incrementally when they find they can comfortably handle it.

and as for a malicious person doing a single tx with large amount of data..
most miners would ignore it just as they ignore 0fee transactions(because they can), if its going to risk their chance of the $10,000 block reward..

and anyone wanting to try bribing a miner into doing a single tx of 1mb.. would need to have fee's of a few thousand dollars.. which as afew have said would cause delay for 10 minutes.. which if you look into the recent past.. no one really screams blue murder if a block takes 12 minutes..

and do you think that the malicious user could continue making these large transactions if it costs thousands each time.. nope.. their money will dry out first.

so its just scaremongering and not seeing the reality of scenario's

How ironic to see a Toominista whining about "scaremongering" after we endured a summer filled with "Capacity Cliff" and "Hard Landing" FUD.   

Tell me more about how "ZOMG THE BLOCKS ARE FULL ALL TX ARE STUCK BITCOIN IS BEING CRIPPLED AND STRANGLED AND D000MED."

All you hard forkers do is use fear to sell XT/Unlimited/Classic and manufactured dissent to goad people/companies into being eager to be the first to defect.

But that's not going to happen, as you just described above.  As some wag on Reddit put it, 'XT will never happen because everyone is waiting for someone else to go first.'

 

You can't generalize about "miners" and what they will/won't do as if they're a monolithic group.

Bitcoin was in fact designed to create, and relies upon, incentives to prevent/destroy collusion among miners.

Since you don't already know that, I conclude you are a clueless n000b with a lot to learn about Satoshi's invention.  I learned it in 2011.  Perhaps you should reconsider your assumption of superior expertise and concede to my own on matters of most grave concern to Bitcoin's past, present, and future.

Let me draw you a picture, which you should find very instructive and educational.

Obscenely rich small-blockers like Mircea doesn't care about spending 10, 100, or 1000 BTC/ToominCoins to pay in-band fees or out-of-band bribes to miners willing to defect from Team Toominista, so they will

1) fill up 2MB Toominblocks with ToominCoin tx they wish to use for shorting purposes, and/or

2) include tx construed so as to require ridiculous amounts of verification time (AFAIK, it's much faster to construe than to verify such troll tx, or they may be construed at leisure but must be verified in haste)

Even if no existing miner wishes to defect for any price (highly unlikely), people with 100k+ BTC like MP can easily temporarily enter the mining business long enough to have their fun and profit wr3cking ToominCoin.

[franky1]

the real funny thing is that i hated xt's 100mb, 20mb, 8mb proposals.
i have not or will not download classic, xt or BU

just because someone wants more capacity doesnt mean they are die hard gavin coin lovers.

and just because someone points out that segwit has some negatives (and i admit positives too) doesnt make them a bitcoin-core hater..

im just pissed off with all the social drama and bickering. which is more aimed at the people instead of the code

but when you do wipe away all the social drama of the leaders of camp blockstream or camp gavincoin and just look at the code of a simple and basic 2mb block increase.. you will realise that a 2mb rule will allow segwit to still do what they want to do, still allow miners to just make 1mb blocks..
it wont kill off bitcoin-core..

it wont actually stop blockstream from doing what they want. all blockstream need to do to stick with 1mb for block creation preference(for miners) and 2mb for user acceptance block limit. that way everyone can work together.. and both bandcamps can just do what they do best... CODE!

again i think the drama is just white noise. and detracting from the actual debate about what the code will do..

so carry on with your buzz words like ZOMG toominista REKT etc as much as you like. as it just seems like you are just posting stuff for personal entertainment rather than actually making a point about the future of bitcoin CODE

[iCEBREAKER]

just because someone wants more capacity doesnt mean they are die hard gavin coin lovers.

Distinction without a difference.  You either support contentious hard forks or you do not.

im just pissed off with all the social drama and bickering. which is more aimed at the people instead of the code

but when you do wipe away all the social drama of the leaders of camp blockstream or camp gavincoin and just look at the code of a simple and basic 2mb block increase.. you will realise that a 2mb rule will allow segwit to still do what they want to do, still allow miners to just make 1mb blocks..
it wont kill off bitcoin-core..

it wont actually stop blockstream from doing what they want. all blockstream need to do to stick with 1mb for block creation preference(for miners) and 2mb for user acceptance block limit. that way everyone can work together.. and both bandcamps can just do what they do best... CODE!

again i think the drama is just white noise. and detracting from the actual debate about what the code will do..

so carry on with your buzz words like ZOMG toominista REKT etc as much as you like. as it just seems like you are just posting stuff for personal entertainment rather than actually making a point about the future of bitcoin CODE

It seems like you don't understand ridicule's potency as a weapon.  Or you do, and are just #BUTTHURT at being ridiculed so effectively by a master of the art.

I came to Bitcoin for the code and stayed for the drama.  There is no conflict there.  Do you even antifragile, bro?  No?  Then #CRYMOAR.

You are welcome to go off and join another FOSS project that is free from "social drama and bickering."  Oh wait...

At what point will it dawn upon you that your cliched 'process concern' whining about "social drama and bickering" only adds to the social drama and bickering?   

[watashi-kokoto]

but when you do wipe away all the social drama of the leaders of camp blockstream or camp gavincoin and just look at the code of a simple and basic 2mb block increase.. you will realise that a 2mb rule will allow segwit to still do what they want to do, still allow miners to just make 1mb blocks..
it wont kill off bitcoin-core..

Hahaha 2mb rule. Where is your 2MB block? Hahahahaha

[franky1]

Hahaha 2mb rule. Where is your 2MB block? Hahahahaha

thats the point.. having the community have the 2mb rule is just a setting that sits there doing nothing until miners are ready to move passed 1mb..

did the community cry about dangers of a 1mb block back in the day when most blocks were under 500k.. no.. they actually liked having 1mb rule as it gave some buffer for expansion without surprises

i would say no one is saying miners should start throwing out >1mb tomorrow (but i know and a few want to people want to).. im saying that its best for the users to have the setting there ready for the future. that way it wont be a shock to the system if miners did start pushing out larger blocks in 6months or 6 years or whenever..

and the debate about naferious people pushing out single transactions of 2mb to screw with miners kind of irrelevant.. simply because the same can be done now with just 1mb limit. so changing the setting does not suddenly cause any new issues or nefarious tactics to suddenly become possible.. the same nefarious tactics are available to be abused right now.

the 2mb limit should just be a buffer for users to be ready for whatever surprises miners come up with in the future.

but strangely some drama queens want to ignore the code and the reason to increase the limit. and instead troll the social eccentricities of people, not code

[BitUsher]

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ
My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "MinerInWorld" WeChat

https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097

Confirmed: Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core.

Context and more details? I knew it was coming from the conversations , but just didn't expect it this quickly.

Details and context being revealed ....(I look forward to more data confirming before making any judgments)

https://www.bikeji.com/t/3144
http://www.weibo.com/3884337005/De95fs0cx?from=page_1005053884337005_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime

The translation:

Yesterday, Jeff(Garzik?), a developer of Bitcoin Classic, took a flight to Beijing from New York, to attend a meeting with the Chinese Bitcoin businesses, including Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC, with the aim of gaining further support for Bitcoin Classic. When talking about Bitcoin Classic's releases, Jeff stated that a hard fork is needed for the upgrading and improvement of the source code(the original Chinese are weasel words and possibly syntactically incorrect), yet(and) without providing a clear long-term roadmap(about what lies ahead of the 2MB increase?), which led to almost universal dissatisfaction among those present, whom further expressed their withdrawal of support for Bitcoin Classic, and the need to reach a wider consensus within the community before a decision can be made.

[sgbett]

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

[iCEBREAKER]

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

Kind of like how Reddit and KnC and Slush supported XT/BIP101, until they didn't.

[watashi-kokoto]

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

Toomim Coin Status: REKT

[sgbett]

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

Kind of like how Reddit and KnC and Slush supported XT/BIP101, until they didn't.

8 minutes, thats gotta be a record!

[watashi-kokoto]

8 minutes, thats gotta be a record!

It's over grandpa, It's over.

 

REKT

[BitUsher]

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

Thanks for your contribution. Do you have any meeting notes or recordings?
There appears to be highly different statements coming from miners where they are trying to appease both groups. Wang chun from F2Pool the other day made a deal with core to raise the blocksize to 2MB in 2017 and he made it clear all hard forks must be at least 1 year in advance with a 95% miner consensus , which rules out Bitcoin Classic.

Bitfury on the other hand gave a quick nod of approval to classic than quickly wrote this article which contradicts Classics Principles -
https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6

Bitcoin Is Not an Electronic Payments System Like PayPal
You simply need an additional system operating on top of the Bitcoin Blockchain (with the Blockchain acting as a settlement layer)

Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx to be spent on payment channels or on the main chain? From what I hear the sentiment is high volume on the main chain to directly pay the miners instead of a settlement system like Bitfury and core propose.

As the Bitcoin network continues to evolve, transaction fees need to grow in order to maintain a high level of security within and for the network.As BitFury has outlined in our white paper on Bitcoin security incentives, the transaction fee market is currently actively developing....
Overlay networks, such as Lightning and sidechains, can successfully deal with this challenge while in-service ledgers already do.

Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx fees be raised and a fee market being created? Notice how he stresses the cheap tx's will be on the sidechains and payment channels like LN , and not on the main chain like being proposed by XT/BU/Classic proponents .

Bitcoin Transaction Processing Is Not Presently Clogged

Do we here this clarification from XT/BU/Classic proponents, or from Core proponents?

As the Scaling Bitcoin conferences have shown, miners are generally in support of cautious increases of the block size limit — just not abrupt increases — because such sudden change could undermine the foundation of the Bitcoin network.

Could that Abrupt increase be referring to a hard fork?

Mass Rule is Not Appropriate for Bitcoin

The pipe dream of some in the Bitcoin community is to govern the system by having ordinary users vote for changes by adopting the corresponding full node software. This approach is not only impractical, it is also not desirable.

This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.
.

[RealBitcoin]

Ok folks, now I finally understood that Core is the transparent way to go and that Classic has too many shady deals and hidden motives in the background.

Now that being said, how will Core scale to the ever increasing transaction space demand?

Classic atleast has a pattern: from 2mb to 8mb to 16mb so on...


How will Core deal with this problem? The segwit stuff is only a 1 shot thing, it will increase efficiency by say 30%, and save us 30% space.

And then what? What will happen after  the real block size becomes 4mb the transaction cost will increase nontheless? It will be no better than the current banking wire's and bitcoin will lose that charm, of cheap TX.


Question 2:  What do you guys think about Roger Ver and his alliance with Classic, why is he pushing it so hard?

[watashi-kokoto]

Ok folks, now I finally understood that Core is the transparent way to go and that Classic has too many shady deals and hidden motives in the background.

Now that being said, how will Core scale to the ever increasing transaction space demand?

Classic atleast has a pattern: from 2mb to 8mb to 16mb so on...


How will Core deal with this problem? The segwit stuff is only a 1 shot thing, it will increase efficiency by say 30%, and save us 30% space.

And then what? What will happen after  the real block size becomes 4mb the transaction cost will increase nontheless? It will be no better than the current banking wire's and bitcoin will lose that charm, of cheap TX.

If we discover a real commerce activity, let me repeat: real commerce activity (not graphs that can be faked, or stress tests) overflowing to altcoins, then it's a valid moment to raise Bitcoin block size.

Until then, our fees gonna be cheap anyway, because you only have to pay more fee than spammers.

Since spammers are cheap asses, spammers are never going to pay a lot fees. For them it's waste of money.

Question 2: What do you guys think about Roger Ver and his alliance with Classic, why is he pushing it so hard?

Simple: Ver, Toomim, Hearn, Jeff Garzik are paid by N.Y Bankers, who try to overtake Bitcoin developement. But chinese miners seem to disagree.

[Sir Lagsalot]

For posterity: "The Toomin brothers, Bitcoin Classic's main devs are debating Core devs and trying to show them the light. It gets quite fishy at the end."

[RealBitcoin]

If we discover a real commerce activity, let me repeat: real commerce activity (not graphs that can be faked, or stress tests) overflowing to altcoins, then it's a valid moment to raise Bitcoin block size.

Until then, our fees gonna be cheap anyway, because you only have to pay more fee than spammers.

Since spammers are cheap asses, spammers are never going to pay a lot fees. For them it's waste of money.

Yes i have noticed, despite the scaremongering of huge fees, I still pay 0.0001BTC and it works fine.

How about introducing a 1-1000 satoshi minimum TX fee, that would eliminate free transactions and reduce the attack vector from spammers?

Simple: Ver, Toomim, Hearn, Jeff Garzik are paid by N.Y Bankers, who try to overtake Bitcoin developement. But chinese miners seem to disagree.

There was always something fishy about it, i can detect propaganda easily, but with this one they almost had me fooled.

Thats why we should probably look at facts first and less about charisma and blindly following bitcoin celebrities.

[BitUsher]

Ok folks, now I finally understood that Core is the transparent way to go and that Classic has too many shady deals and hidden motives in the background.

Now that being said, how will Core scale to the ever increasing transaction space demand?

Classic atleast has a pattern: from 2mb to 8mb to 16mb so on...


How will Core deal with this problem? The segwit stuff is only a 1 shot thing, it will increase efficiency by say 30%, and save us 30% space.

This has been answered many times... Core Has a comprehensive scaling plan - https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/

If you just want to focus on the capacity side of scaling the latest details are -
1) segwit = effective 1.7MB to 2MB in April
2) Lightning network being tested and deployed later this year adding to that capacity
3) HF being planned now with cooperation of chinese miners for 2MB maxBlockSize for an effective 4MB+(lightning network will add to this) capacity in Feb/march 17'
4) Long term solutions like flexcap are being tested and will need to eventually be hardforked in

Question 2: [/b] What do you guys think about Roger Ver and his alliance with Classic, why is he pushing it so hard?

Roger Ver is a great guy and wants what is best for bitcoin. Core and him agree on the goals of trying to onramp as many people as possible but Roger Ver isn't as technical and thus doesn't completely understand all the network limitations and tradeoffs at play.

[iCEBREAKER]

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

Thanks for your contribution. Do you have any meeting notes or recordings?
There appears to be highly different statements coming from miners where they are trying to appease both groups. Wang chun from F2Pool the other day made a deal with core to raise the blocksize to 2MB in 2017 and he made it clear all hard forks must be at least 1 year in advance with a 95% miner consensus , which rules out Bitcoin Classic.

Bitfury on the other hand gave a quick nod of approval to classic than quickly wrote this article which contradicts Classics Principles -
https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6

Bitcoin Is Not an Electronic Payments System Like PayPal
You simply need an additional system operating on top of the Bitcoin Blockchain (with the Blockchain acting as a settlement layer)

Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx to be spent on payment channels or on the main chain? From what I hear the sentiment is high volume on the main chain to directly pay the miners instead of a settlement system like Bitfury and core propose.

As the Bitcoin network continues to evolve, transaction fees need to grow in order to maintain a high level of security within and for the network.As BitFury has outlined in our white paper on Bitcoin security incentives, the transaction fee market is currently actively developing....
Overlay networks, such as Lightning and sidechains, can successfully deal with this challenge while in-service ledgers already do.

Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx fees be raised and a fee market being created? Notice how he stresses the cheap tx's will be on the sidechains and payment channels like LN , and not on the main chain like being proposed by XT/BU/Classic proponents .

Bitcoin Transaction Processing Is Not Presently Clogged

Do we here this clarification from XT/BU/Classic proponents, or from Core proponents?

As the Scaling Bitcoin conferences have shown, miners are generally in support of cautious increases of the block size limit — just not abrupt increases — because such sudden change could undermine the foundation of the Bitcoin network.

Could that Abrupt increase be referring to a hard fork?

Mass Rule is Not Appropriate for Bitcoin

The pipe dream of some in the Bitcoin community is to govern the system by having ordinary users vote for changes by adopting the corresponding full node software. This approach is not only impractical, it is also not desirable.

This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.
.

*Classic Civil War Intensifies*

"There ain't room in this Golden Bikeshed for the both of us!!"

[watashi-kokoto]

Roger Ver is a great guy and wants what is best for bitcoin. Core and him agree on the goals of trying to onramp as many people as possible but Roger Ver isn't as technical and thus doesn't completely understand all the network limitations and tradeoffs at play.

I know. But money corrupts, and public statements may be paid for. That's why we should be careful and double vet anyting.



I never believed Visa scale. I never believed about To the Moon. That was the dream of the old generation, we believe in other things like Satoshi.

I don't ask for much. I consider every new block a huge victory for us.

Gentlemen, If we keep the system running until the next crisis, until the next bailouts, I believe we're all set.