ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Lauda]

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

8 minutes, thats gotta be a record!

It seems like miners are still sane and luckily it seems like Classic is going on the list of failed takeovers.

Roger Ver is a great guy and wants what is best for bitcoin.

-snip-

You forgot that he's the person who vouched for Mt.Gox solvency.  

[thejaytiesto]

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.

To be honest I think Roger Ver agrees with Classic so when he is asked in interviews why he agrees with classic he can subtlety drop an advertisement about his website. "By the way Classic is censored in the official reddit thats why we created Bitcoin.com..." it's not that subtle actually.

[RealBitcoin]

To be honest I think Roger Ver agrees with Classic so when he is asked in interviews why he agrees with classic he can subtlety drop an advertisement about his website. "By the way Classic is censored in the official reddit thats why we created Bitcoin.com..." it's not that subtle actually.

Yes the censorship sucks, and they will use that against us to gain credibility. I think censorship should not be done even if we are right, it is just a bad thing to do.

[pereira4]

Yes the censorship sucks, and they will use that against us to gain credibility. I think censorship should not be done even if we are right, it is just a bad thing to do.

I agree with this view too. We are right, Classic is a disaster, but Theymos has now fame of being a grumpy mod, the populists can use this to gain followers for their Classic, XT or whatever they call it takeover. I understand the frustration that it must be to see Bitcoin reddit being flooded with Classic/XT stuff tho, and a lot of it is paid to influence people. What should be done is to inform people, banning it probably gives you a more dark image which is exploitable by the enemy.

[brg444]

Amazing. Classic could'nt even last a week.

It's time for the Gavinistas to hit the door in a ragequitting moment.

#REKT

[RealBitcoin]

Yes the censorship sucks, and they will use that against us to gain credibility. I think censorship should not be done even if we are right, it is just a bad thing to do.

I agree with this view too. We are right, Classic is a disaster, but Theymos has now fame of being a grumpy mod, the populists can use this to gain followers for their Classic, XT or whatever they call it takeover. I understand the frustration that it must be to see Bitcoin reddit being flooded with Classic/XT stuff tho, and a lot of it is paid to influence people. What should be done is to inform people, banning it probably gives you a more dark image which is exploitable by the enemy.

And even if this particular censorship instance is beneficial for us,  we still cannot use it. Because it can become a weapon against us in the future, so it would be hyporcritical to use it ourselves.

[watashi-kokoto]

And even if this particular censorship instance is beneficial for us,  we still cannot use it. Because it can become a weapon against us in the future, so it would be hyporcritical to use it ourselves.

I know. I think we don't have much choice. These paid posters aren't going to simply disappear. I wish our systems survived until the Bitcoin gets a major boost from halving and also from the the fear of people at various stock markets and so on.

While there is a currency war between China and US we must be careful about every step we do.

[BitUsher]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin, vote for its future.... wonderful.

[RealBitcoin]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin, vote for its future.... wonderful.

\

Now that I think more of it, it actually sounds really ridiculous, and the Classic folks severely dont understand the ramifications of it.

Exponential Bitcoin growth? Lol that is worse than the financial ponzi scheme the fiat bankers run.

Imagine in 100 years we would have half of the planet full of datacenters running bitcoin nodes and there would only be like 2-3 separate nodes.

It would be crazy, and unsustainable, and rest assured bitcoin would fail before we would mine all coins. Even if it works out for the next 50 years (and that is a big IF), the whole philosophy is bad, and we should not do it.


A linear growth is better than an exponential one, because it's more manageable, that is the golden rule.

[RodeoX]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin, vote for its future.... wonderful.

Those "mobs of idiots" may not agree with you, but this is a consensus network and nobody gets to choose who votes. I have yet to see a better idea than the consider.it software that Michale developed. I met with him prior to the launch and he is a smart guy who is trying to put out tools for bringing this to a conclusion. I see little effort around here to anything but make noise. We need more people like him.

[BitUsher]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin, vote for its future.... wonderful.

Those "mobs of idiots" may not agree with you, but this is a consensus network and nobody gets to choose who votes. I have yet to see a better idea than the consider.it software that Michale developed. I met with him prior to the launch and he is a smart guy who is trying to put out tools for bringing this to a conclusion. I see little effort around here to anything but make noise. We need more people like him.

I understand that my statement will naturally be unpopular and sound elitist... but do you really want people voting on fundamental protocol changes when they don't know much about the technical ramifications and using a voting mechanism that has no way of preventing a "sybil attack" on those votes with individuals of malicious intent decide the fate of our ecosystem?

I am not attacking Michale or the consider.it site . I think it is a useful tool for certain purposes and have said and will continue to say that people like Jonathan Toomim, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Olivier Janssens, Roger Ver are not only intelligent, capable , but also individuals I respect.

This doesn't change the fact that the idea of basing governance of protocol changes with consider.it is absolutely insane and dangerous.

[RodeoX]

...
I understand that my statement will naturally be unpopular and sound elitist... but do you really want people voting on fundamental protocol changes within an implementations when they don't know much about the technical ramifications and consider.it has no preventing a "sybil attack" on those votes with individuals of malicious intent to our ecosystem.

I am not attacking Michale or the consider.it site . I think it is a useful tool and have said and will continue to say that people like
Jonathan Toomim, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Olivier Janssens, Roger Ver are not only intelligent, capable , but individuals I respect.

This doesn't change the fact that the idea of basing governance of protocol changes with consider.it is absolutely insane and dangerous.

I do also understand your position. It is the hard challenge of coming to a census that includes some really ridiculous ideas and characters. Unfortunately I have no good ideas myself. But I am still optimistic that what we are going through will eventually yield fruit. Perhaps we will even invent a new model of distributed agreement?
As much as I also wince at the idea of input from truly ignorant participants, I just can't shake the feeling that letting the "experts" decide will lead to an unholy end.
I watched the Bitcoin Foundation fall apart for many of the same reasons. Everything from people joining specifically to destroy the organization to people joining to enrich themselves.

The real vote comes as individuals choose the fork they want. God help us all, lol.

[BitUsher]

The real vote comes as individuals choose the fork they want. God help us all, lol.

The governance model was supposed to be one of an anarchistic meritocracy consensus where new features were vetted and tested based upon evidence and expertise. The vote never had any restrictions from outsiders but required at minimum a formal proposal drafted(BIP) and corresponding code to even be considered first for peer review and decided upon. This test is akin to a basic aptitude test to eliminate most idiots, spam, and attackers from filling up the protocol rules with backdoors, bugs, and bloated features.  

I think one of the problems is so many people have been programmed to believe in a false dichotomy of either democratic mob rule or totalitarian control... when there are other methods of coming to consensus. Core is not behaving in a totalitarian manner either...infact their work on libbitcoinconsensus reflects the opposite.

I certainly will walk away supporting a democratic mob ruled coined and consider this experiment a failure.

In a way , part of me welcomes Classic creating a hard fork so we can finally solve the problem of mining centralization with solutions like this -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0

[OgNasty]

Funny that they created a centralized easily manipulated voting system to prove why their ideas for decentralization should be implemented.  A bad joke to say the least.  Ignore the static.

[marcus_of_augustus]

To be honest I think Roger Ver agrees with Classic so when he is asked in interviews why he agrees with classic he can subtlety drop an advertisement about his website. "By the way Classic is censored in the official reddit thats why we created Bitcoin.com..." it's not that subtle actually.

Yes the censorship sucks, and they will use that against us to gain credibility. I think censorship should not be done even if we are right, it is just a bad thing to do.

it was in no way censorship, you've bought into the double-speak of the sock-puppets and shills who were over-running the legitimate bitcoin forums before better moderation showed up (notice how they still jealously covet getting a voice on these "hated censored forums") ... it was totally out of control, there was no debate before, just a loud cacophony of propaganda ... once they go to their "own" forums they had nothing to say and just started tearing strips off each other.

[DieJohnny]

Core is full of shit. There is absolutely no issue with raising the block size. How about by 10%, nope, they won't raise it at all.....

Core is forcing bitcoin to be something different than what 99% of the community expected it to be... they want the blockchain to be the backbone. A reasonable position, however, Core had this agenda long ago and only now it has become completely obvious. Unfortunately, most of the community wasn't along for the Core ride... now we want off this ship.  

[marcus_of_augustus]

Core is full of shit. There is absolutely no issue with raising the block size. How about by 10%, nope, they won't raise it at all.....

Core is forcing bitcoin to be something different than what 99% of the community expected it to be... they want the blockchain to be the backbone. A reasonable position, however, Core had this agenda long ago and only now it has become completely obvious. Unfortunately, most of the community wasn't along for the Core ride... now we want off this ship.  

Core has stated many times that everyone wants to raise the max_block_size, that is not contentious. It is how and when that it is done that is being debated in a civilised and calculated manner.

My personal preference is leaning towards a linear scaling growth factor that decreases at each halving. Such that max_block_size inflation tapers off at roughly the same rate as coin issuance to ensure fees take over the blockchain security incentive smoothly as rewards decrease.

[Lauda]

Core is full of shit. There is absolutely no issue with raising the block size. How about by 10%, nope, they won't raise it at all.....

Core is forcing bitcoin to be something different than what 99% of the community expected it to be... they want the blockchain to be the backbone. A reasonable position, however, Core had this agenda long ago and only now it has become completely obvious. Unfortunately, most of the community wasn't along for the Core ride... now we want off this ship.  

I would not be surprised if someone said that you were 'full of shit' after such a statement. There is a huge issue with raising the block size to 2 MB (right now; transactions that take too long to validate). How about you get proper and relevant education(enabling you to understand/do your own tests) before making baseless conclusions and accusations? There is nothing wrong with transacting mostly by the use of off chain solutions such as LN. The best way to scale would be a combination of everything.

Core has stated many times that everyone wants to raise the max_bloc_size, that is not contentious. It is how and when that it is done that is being debated in a civilised and calculated manner.

I'll wait for the validation time to get fixed and propagation time improved. Eventually the block size will be raised.

Funny that they created a centralized easily manipulated voting system to prove why their ideas for decentralization should be implemented.  A bad joke to say the least.  Ignore the static.

I think I've read somewhere that Toomin has been working hard on promoting that platform. Seems like something is not right.

[jonald_fyookball]

Core is full of shit. There is absolutely no issue with raising the block size. How about by 10%, nope, they won't raise it at all.....

Core is forcing bitcoin to be something different than what 99% of the community expected it to be... they want the blockchain to be the backbone. A reasonable position, however, Core had this agenda long ago and only now it has become completely obvious. Unfortunately, most of the community wasn't along for the Core ride... now we want off this ship.  

I would not be surprised if someone said that you were 'full of shit' after such a statement. There is a huge issue with raising the block size to 2 MB (right now; transactions that take too long to validate). How about you get proper and relevant education(enabling you to understand/do your own tests) before making baseless conclusions and accusations? There is nothing wrong with transacting mostly by the use of off chain solutions such as LN. The best way to scale would be a combination of everything.

Core has stated many times that everyone wants to raise the max_bloc_size, that is not contentious. It is how and when that it is done that is being debated in a civilised and calculated manner.

I'll wait for the validation time to get fixed and propagation time improved. Eventually the block size will be raised.

Funny that they created a centralized easily manipulated voting system to prove why their ideas for decentralization should be implemented.  A bad joke to say the least.  Ignore the static.

I think I've read somewhere that Toomin has been working hard on promoting that platform. Seems like something is not right.

There's always a million reasons and excuses why Core hasn't raised the limit.
 
re: "huge issue with raising it" -- pretty unconvincing. 
isn't there already a fix for the 'big transactions'? 
Last I heard there was and core isn't including it... 
why am I not surprised.


 

[franky1]

There's always a million reasons and excuses why Core hasn't raised the limit.
 
re: "huge issue with raising it" -- pretty unconvincing.  
isn't there already a fix for the 'big transactions'?  
Last I heard there was and core isn't including it...  
why am I not surprised.

there is many solutions.

these solutions can be:
a. similar function that cherry picks transactions that have fee's / ignore transactions that are 0free.. can also ignore bloated transactions, until the miner is ready to handle them (nothing is forcing a miner to add a 1mb single tx as soon as it hits mempool.. same way devs feel happy that miners can delay 0 fee transactions)

b. just drop bloated single transactions and treat them as rule breakers. that way it makes people ensure they are more ethical about how they create transactions


i think that the devs who scaremonger that 1mb single tx's that bottleneck(for 10 minutes) the system by thinking that miners should process these bloated transactions as priority are hypocritical when they also say its a free market to ignore transactions with no fee.

so if miners are allowed to ignore transactions.. then there is no issue or anything to be scared about in regards to 1mb transactions..
and by the way a 2mb blocksize doesnt suddenly add new magical functionality to make it suddenly possible to create a bloated tx.. so again using the bloated tx as a scaremonger story to dissuade people away from 2mb rules is again a nonsense point to make.. nefarious people can make bloated transactions even now with the 1mb limit.. and nothing changes that