ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[franky1]

Then consider the possibility you "FREE TX 4EVA" Tooministas are useful idiots for the R3 darkside, or, GTFO n000b!

its not about free transactions. in 20 years i too expect miners to be paid fairly for their work. but it needs to be affordable. and scaling needs to start sooner to allow for slow growth over 20 years to then be viable for miners to get a nice payday for their work. rather than a mad rush when the usability bubble is about to burst.

EG if you small blockers want to stick to 1mb, then miners will want $2.50 per transaction in 20 years just to get the $10,000 a block based on 4000 tx's(like the $10,000 they get thanks to the block reward today)

bitcoin needs to scale to allow more transactions when needed.. like a buffer to allow growth, rather then bottle-necking to cause a demand fee rise. and then only change when the bubble is about to burst.

much easier to have a 2mb buffer sooner, to allow 4001 transactions of 8000 buffer.. and then when miners are comfortable with the milisecond extra processing time for that extra tx. they try 4002, then 4003, slowly over time, rgow when they are comfortable processing more... because miners are not going to throw 8000 transactions(1.999mb) into their processing time straight away. thats just illogical doomsday scenarios that doesnt benefit miners. and is just the crappy hypothetical that trolls use to misdirect people into thinking growth is bad..

only when miners are happily near the 8000tx average in a few years due to comfortable slow growth, then the block limit rise debate can be debated again.

all the meandered debates that dont address growth in a different manner than blockstreams plans to get everyone over to their liquid alt.. is just boring waffle that doesnt inspire bitcoin growth and just distracts people from code change debate.. which i know you love baiting and switching, not only in debate, but also in future plans.

but i do love how you say bitcoin can cope.. while at 90% transaction capacity (false pretense there is 10% buffer free to expand) yet less publicly there is 900% second class(not priority) waiting in the wind(mempool) for hours. which debunks your attempts to say bitcoin can cope.

wouldn't you rather have bitcoin actually do its job properly and actually process transactions in a timely manner because they have more capacity as a buffer to allow for growth?.... or is it all about the profits from screwing people over that interests you, while you hold your bag of 'liquid' that you want to be priced at $400 a pop, while slowly killing off bitcoin

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

#UNR3KT

As Miami conference has not reached consensus, the Chinese community members gathered in Beijing to seek consensus within China. The aim is to prevent split of community, seek common ground while reserving differences. Core has said that a scaling without consensus is too risky. We will give them the consensus.

(Did I do that right?)

In this meating we have produced a plan: Once blocks are full, and at that time, * if Core has not yet upgraded to 2MB, * and if Classic is not enough widely supported, * we will do what Satoshi has pointed out https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 We will modify the code patch to alter cap from 1MB to 2MB to solve the pressing problem. This means, as we think, has a big potential to reach consensus, and urge Core to accommodate.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

[iCEBREAKER]

#UNR3KT

As Miami conference has not reached consensus, the Chinese community members gathered in Beijing to seek consensus within China. The aim is to prevent split of community, seek common ground while reserving differences. Core has said that a scaling without consensus is too risky. We will give them the consensus.

(Did I do that right?)

No, this is how you do it.

Lesson learned from the Classic coup attempt or why Core needs to prepare a GPU only PoW

Guy Corem
CEO of Spondoolies-Tech


https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

The Classic coup attempt orchestrated by the Classic Kabal (Marshall Long, Olivier Janssens, Jonathan Toomim, Michael Toomin, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik) demonstrated how an organized and determined small group of individuals came very close to be able to change Bitcoin development governance model, riding the popular demand to increase the block size limit.

In the beginning of January Olivier Janssens and Mashall Long asked Jonathan Toomim to be the lead maintainer of a “simple” 2MB Hard Fork, called BitcoinClassic, after Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik refused the role.

....

What will happen to Core chain if Classic will be activated?

Will Classic activation mean the end to the Core chain ?

Not necessarily; Careful planning on behalf of Core will allow it survive.

I believe that Core developers will split into three camps: Some will join Classic Chain (and fork), some will quit Bitcoin altogether, and some will continue development on Core Chain (and fork).

....

Miners and pool operators, friends and partners, I urge you to rescind support for this hostile political takeover and keep Bitcoin growing within its existing consensus-based governance.

[iCEBREAKER]

much easier to have a 2mb buffer sooner

Yes, Classic is renowned among crypto professionals for its agile, fail-fast "not much testing needed" approach.

Have the amateur ToominClowns started signing git commits yet?

slowly killing off bitcoin   

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Go tell BitcoinObituaries.com all about this week's d0000msday forecast.  Your Hearn@signit.google.mil style hand-wringing is a better ideological fit over there.   

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The masses demand an inexperienced team of developers willing to please! The technical community will only stand in the doorway for so long.

[franky1]

The masses demand an inexperienced team of developers willing to please! The technical community will only stand in the doorway for so long.

nah the masses demand a technical team of developers that are willing to please..

the only problem is that the inexperienced bankers want to destroy bitcoin so that people invest in their fiat.
the only problem is the blockstream people want to cripple bitcoin growth so that people will invest in their 'liquid'

neither band camp wants to serve the general community with more capacity for bitcoin and both sides argue with doomsday scenario's that expanding bitcoin for general use is bad

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The masses demand an inexperienced team of developers willing to please! The technical community will only stand in the doorway for so long.

nah the masses demand a technical team of developers that are willing to please..

the only problem is that the inexperienced bankers want to destroy bitcoin so that people invest in their fiat.
the only problem is the blockstream people want to cripple bitcoin growth so that people will invest in their 'liquid'

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why? Liquid is a pegged sidechain.

neither band camp wants to serve the general community with more capacity for bitcoin and both sides argue with doomsday scenario's that expanding bitcoin for general use is bad

So BOTH sides of the scaling Bitcoin debate are against you?

[franky1]

The masses demand an inexperienced team of developers willing to please! The technical community will only stand in the doorway for so long.

nah the masses demand a technical team of developers that are willing to please..

the only problem is that the inexperienced bankers want to destroy bitcoin so that people invest in their fiat.
the only problem is the blockstream people want to cripple bitcoin growth so that people will invest in their 'liquid'

neither band camp wants to serve the general community with more capacity for bitcoin and both sides argue with doomsday scenario's that expanding bitcoin for general use is bad

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why?

because a few million is just 10,000 btc.... yet if they cripple bitcoin and move everyone over to liquid.. then they are set to have millions of liquid to sell to noobs, not thousands
look at the ripple, nxt, ethereum pre-sales and shtcoin premine as a guide to the plan

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The masses demand an inexperienced team of developers willing to please! The technical community will only stand in the doorway for so long.

nah the masses demand a technical team of developers that are willing to please..

the only problem is that the inexperienced bankers want to destroy bitcoin so that people invest in their fiat.
the only problem is the blockstream people want to cripple bitcoin growth so that people will invest in their 'liquid'

neither band camp wants to serve the general community with more capacity for bitcoin and both sides argue with doomsday scenario's that expanding bitcoin for general use is bad

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why?

because a few million is just 10,000 btc.... yet if they cripple bitcoin and move everyone over to liquid.. then they are set to have millions of liquid to sell to noobs, not thousands
look at the ripple, nxt, ethereum pre-sales as a guide to the plan

Liquid is a pegged sidechain. Not an altcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why? Liquid is a pegged sidechain.

Liquid is a payment channel, not a pegged sidechain.  They are completely different things.  Do you not understand how Bitcoin works?

Please advice on your exact degree of technical incompetence so we may patiently better meet your educational deficit's requirements for amelioration.  Have you ever even used a compiler or written a script?

And what is the name of this billionaire who supposedly bribed Gmax to cripple Bitcoin?  Do you have a cite for that assertion?

You really should form opinions after learning the facts, not the other way around.   

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why? Liquid is a pegged sidechain.

Liquid is a payment channel, not a pegged sidechain.  They are completely different things.  Do you not understand how Bitcoin works?

I thought Lightning was the payment channel.

Please advice on your exact degree of technical incompetence

3 years resident, 2 years intern.

Have you ever even used a compiler or written a script?

No, I'm not even a real doctor.

[jonald_fyookball]

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why? Liquid is a pegged sidechain.
 

Are you really naive enough to believe that venture capital
wants to simply fund an open source project?  I'm quite sure that
there is some business plan and a way for Blockstream to become
profitable.  Blockstream has not been transparent with their business
model but we can all take educated guesses.

[franky1]

Liquid is a pegged sidechain. Not an altcoin.

liquid is not an altcoin or a side chain. its a completely different token measure,

just like some of the examples i mentioned are not proper blockchain currencies.. my point was more about the creating value out of nothing

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Liquid is a pegged sidechain. Not an altcoin.

liquid is not an altcoin or a side chain. its a completely different token measure,

just like some of the examples i mentioned are not proper blockchain currencies.. my point was more about the creating value out of nothing

So what the hell is Liquid then?

Five major bitcoin startups – Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin and Xapo – will operate the private sidechain

Whatever. Everything is R3KT anyway.

[brg444]

Slowly but surely the true colors of the Tooministas come to light



The shades of socialism are unmistakeable.

Their 2MB hardfork nothing but a red-herring to hide their real plans of "making Bitcoin great again" through democratic demagogy.




Evidently, as this very information slowly finds its way through the veneer of bullshit they've managed to deceive various miners and chinese participants with, the chinks in the armour of agitprop is showing.

Chinese community meeting HaoBtc avalon okcoin  bither wallet :heart_eyes:turned to support core because of 2 reason

[4:50]
1  75% roles lease to split

[4:52]
2.  One of classic team member chat with him earlier , which gives him impresson of the motives of classic not only want 2m but want to split community

...

 I don't think so, they are changing their mind because they are gradually learn the truth

As was expected of fractious ventures, your shit stinks as much as other similarly flavored XTs & scamcoins. Consensus is forming. Classic getting forked off.

[brg444]

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why? Liquid is a pegged sidechain.
 

Are you really naive enough to believe that venture capital
wants to simply fund an open source project?  I'm quite sure that
there is some business plan and a way for Blockstream to become
profitable.  Blockstream has not been transparent with their business
model but we can all take educated guesses.

All great open source projects have been funded with private investments at least to some extent.

Most VCs in Blockstream have used, AFAIK, their own private trust fund.

In other words, they're playing with house money. Moreover they probably own bitcoins and feel Blockstream can provide value to their investment.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Are you really naive enough to believe that venture capital
wants to simply fund an open source project?  

21 million is nothing to those guys. Literally nothing.

I'm quite sure that
there is some business plan and a way for Blockstream to become
profitable.

How sure is quite sure?

Blockstream has not been transparent with their business
model.

How so?

[iCEBREAKER]

the only problem is that the inexperienced bankers want to destroy bitcoin so that people invest in their fiat.

the only problem is the blockstream people want to cripple bitcoin growth so that people will invest in their 'liquid'

If Bitcoin can be destroyed by "inexperienced bankers" it doesn't deserve to live.  If Bitcoin can be crippled by "blockstream people" it doesn't deserve to live.

Notice: When the experiment ceases to be viable (ie provide useful information), it will be terminated and replaced with a new version utilizing appropriately modulated control variables.

^That's what Guy Corem and his brothers-in-arms are saying.

We'd love for SHA-256 to keep working for our Honey Badger, but if SHA-256 turns out to be fatally allergic to bee stings or cobras then it's time for an upgrade.

Consequently, this is Bitcoin Civil War 2 melodrama is much ado about nothing.

The SHA-256 miners will keep their jobs as the diligent, hard-working, and supremely well-paid security guards of the socioeconomic majority's Most Serene Republic.

But they will cease further forays into Palace Intrigue, because they are merely the current SHA-256 PoW means to the end of distributed antifragile Nakamoto Consensus.

There's nothing very special about the SHA-256 PoW.  Not anymore than there was about 1MB at the time it was selected as the max block size.

Bitcoin is not married to the SHA-256 PoW.  If there is a 51% mining attack by Toominista hard forkers, the Holy Blockchain is already at risk of catastrophic consensus failure, so the small block militia has little to lose and everything to gain by swapping out the centralized, compromised, and failing SHA-256 PoW for a different one. 

It's no different than replacing car's broken engine.  In the framework of the Bitcoinmobile, a new (and improved) PoW engine will still do its job, which is turning energy into Power.

It doesn't really matter if it's Scrypt, Cryptonote, constellations of prime numbers, Keccak (luke-jr) or the thing GPU-only Guy is proposing (I'm calling it CoreCycle).  All it has to be is at least as good as SHA-256, but not SHA-256.

If the SHA-256 miners try to be the boss of the Bitcoin owners, they will be fired.  Because they are so exquisitely specialized and thus completely vulnerable to PoW shift, they will quickly back down.  As mining profits have been driven down to marginal rates, SHA-256 miners cannot afford to risk missing a single 1MB block because they are fooling around with "not much testing needed" 2MB ones.

Who would understand that better than Guy Corem, CEO of Spondoolies?  _{(No points if you said 'Adam Back' or 'luke-jr!')}   

[jaybny]

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

you keep bringng this up, is this correct? From what I understand, with segwit, it will only be 1MB for older pre-soft-fork clients. and 2mb or more for new clients. The tx and sig will be in separate data. not sure if there will be a size limit for the sig part of 1mb or more?

[Peter R]

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

you keep bringng this up, is this correct? From what I understand, with segwit, it will only be 1MB for older pre-soft-fork clients. and 2mb or more for new clients. The tx and sig will be in separate data. not sure if there will be a size limit for the sig part of 1mb or more?

The formula is:

base x 4 + segwit <= 4,000,000 bytes