ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[jaybny]

you sound confident, looks like you know your shit and make sense.

but you and I know, you dont really know what your talking about. quit while your ahead.

standard rhetoric of someone who cant correct someone..
show no technical proof to rebutt claims..
dont explain details in real world terms
dont use examples..

and instead insult them and tell them to shut up..

well have a good day

its just from your posts, it obvious that you do not have full grasp of bitcoin, the issues or proposed solutions.

Problem: the max block size is 1MB. so when block data reaches capacity, transactions must wait to be included in next block.

Solution: remove signatures from the "block" - this will enable more transactions to fit into 1MB   

Question: but how does a full node verify new blocks? how does a miner very transactions to include in a block?

Answer: a separate "block" of data contains just the signatures for all transactions in the block.

Note: currently full nodes never even look at signatures from old blocks when syncing the block chain. all that is used is a merkle root in the bock header.

Question: so for all clients that do not update their software, wont all new blocks fail verification? 

Answer: no. to old clients they will look like valid transactions and will be considered "ANYONECANSPEND"

[franky1]

Problem: the max block size is 1MB. so when block data reaches capacity, transactions must wait to be included in next block.

Solution: remove signatures from the "block" - this will enable more transactions to fit into 1MB  

signature removal only benefits users that are not full nodes..

full nodes will request the signature data, making REAL LIFE data more than 1mb
= there wont be 6000tx-8000tx for 1mb for full nodes.. it will be 2mb

there is no data saved for full nodes.

the whole point of the maxblock rule is to keep REAL LIFE data under control.. switching what to constitute as in the block is not controlling REAL LIFE data.. its just pretending it doesnt exist for the lemmings. and then increasing it for the full nodes..
you missing the whole point of why the maxblocksize is there in the first place

if people are happy to receive more then 1mb of full checkable data.. then raise the limit
so then people who want to do standard private key transactions can have 2mb of buffer space while segwit special transactions can stay at a preferential 1mb alongside having the hard 2mb limit...and be happy in their little world with their funky new transactions

[hdbuck]

Guy Corem, CEO of Spondoolies Tech: Lesson learned from the Classic coup attempt or why Core needs to prepare a GPU only PoW

https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0#.uqgl92uvm

Lulzy

[jaybny]

signature removal only benefits users that are not full nodes..

signature removal enables more tx per block.

full nodes will request the signature data, making REAL LIFE data more than 1mb
= there wont be 6000tx-8000tx for 1mb for full nodes.. it will be 2mb

yes its a given that it takes more data for more transactions. the reason for this is NOT to reduce real life data. The purpose IS TO INCREASE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS per block.

there is no data saved for full nodes.

no. the problem IS NOT data size. The problem is number of transactions.

the whole point of the maxblock rule is to keep REAL LIFE data under control.. switching what to constitute as in the block is not controlling REAL LIFE data.. its just pretending it doesnt exist for the lemmings. and then increasing it for the full nodes..
you missing the whole point of why the maxblocksize is there in the first place

the max size was to limit spam, it was a last minute change and was always expected to be increased.

if people are happy to receive more then 1mb of full checkable data.. then raise the limit

people dont care about the size of the data, the issue is the number of transactions. raising the limit will cause a hrd fork, while segwit will not.

so then people who want to do standard private key transactions can have 2mb of buffer space while segwit special transactions can stay at a preferential 1mb alongside having the hard 2mb limit...and be happy in their little world with their funky new transactions

You don't understand. The transactions will all be signed by private-keys, the only question is where the signature data is stored.

We are talking about ways to increase number of transactions per block. The size of data will increase. The expectation is that everyone upgrades, so every full node will be able to verify all transactions. The reason using this rather then just changing to 2MB is a question of a soft-fork vs a hard-fork.


Or maybe we are talking about two different things..

[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.

OK Frap.doc Junior, where's the citation for your outrageous/libelous "billionaire bribed Gmax to cripple Bitcon" claim?  No rush, we'll wait.

...

...

mostly bile

Here is my original quote:

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

Did you read it or are you just responding to my avatar?

You want to know about Blockstream funding, look it up!

[iCEBREAKER]

You want to know about Blockstream funding, look it up!

The code Blockstream writes is what's important, not who funds them.

[Carlton Banks]

so every node that does not upgrade becomes a light client. good! if you care, then upgrade!!

miners will upgrade and will be processing 2-3-4-5 MB of block data.. ok go whats the problem?

the problem is that blockstreams debate for not allowing 2.3.4.5 of block data is the china firewall, the drama of forks.. and the other nonsense drama stuff..

when infact segwit does not solve having more transactions for1mb.. FOR TRUE FULLY VALIDATING NODES. and its just a gimmick purely for lemmings to pretend they are full nodes, while passing around data they cant validate.

which makes segwit not the solution to capacity..

i agree segwit has uses in regards to transaction malleability.. but people want capacity increases.. which can only happen with more data

Total garbage, Franky.

You're basically trying to tell us that on one hand SegWit doesn't provide 4MB, and yet on the other hand, the old nodes won't have access to the data that you say doesn't even properly exist! It can't be both.


As I've said already, your ability to comprehend and explain this stuff needs alot of work. You're not currently well suited to helping others, you can't even help yourself. We are willing to help you, but your egotistical attitude leaves alot to be desired: I don't want to help someone who is so aggressive and so dogmatic.

You'll eventually find yourself thrashing around with no-one willing to help you, which would be a shame, as, like I've said, you're quite a likable character otherwise.

[Lauda]

Total garbage, Franky.

As I've said already, your ability to comprehend and explain this stuff needs alot of work. You're not currently well suited to helping others, you can't even help yourself. We are willing to help you, but your egotistical attitude leaves alot to be desired: I don't want to help someone who is so aggressive and so dogmatic.

This is why I've put several people on ignore, including him and Sebastian. They would rather 'die' than admit to being wrong so everything is futile. I do not want to waste any more time on such individuals even though I've really tried helping them.
The block size debate has made people around here show their true faces. It is quite unfortunate that it has come to this.

[sgbett]

Total garbage, Franky.

As I've said already, your ability to comprehend and explain this stuff needs alot of work. You're not currently well suited to helping others, you can't even help yourself. We are willing to help you, but your egotistical attitude leaves alot to be desired: I don't want to help someone who is so aggressive and so dogmatic.

This is why I've put several people on ignore, including him and Sebastian. They would rather 'die' than admit to being wrong so everything is futile. I do not want to waste any more time on such individuals even though I've really tried helping them.
The block size debate has made people around here show their true faces. It is quite unfortunate that it has come to this.

At the risk of sounding like I just automatically disagree with everything you say... I disagree!

Only with that last bit though, I think its *very* good that the block size debate has made people show their true faces. Unfortunately I think the people this most applies to are so screwed up they won't even show the slightest bit of embarrassment/remorse, or whatever and more importantly won't learn anything :/

They will just do as you said, continue to argue black is white. Such is the nature of internet forums though

Hopefully thats something I can be wrong about!

[Lauda]

At the risk of sounding like I just automatically disagree with everything you say... I disagree! Only with that last bit though, I think its *very* good that the block size debate has made people show their true faces.

I did not mean that it is bad that they have shown their faces, rather that it is unfortunate that their true personas are like that.

Unfortunately I think the people this most applies to are so screwed up they won't even show the slightest bit of embarrassment/remorse, or whatever and more importantly won't learn anything :/
They will just do as you said, continue to argue black is white. Such is the nature of internet forums though

Hopefully thats something I can be wrong about!

That's true. However, I've met some fine people prior and during the debate; people that know a lot more and people that know a lot less (which did admit to being wrong and thanked me for spending my time helping them). Did anyone thank anyone in similar threads for doing their homework recently? Not really, they've continued to fight back. It seems that the virtue of admitting fault is becoming very rare. I have a certain limit after which I refuse to have any association/interaction with people.
Since this thread is about 'Toomin' I might as well leave this here and definitely worth a listen (start at 45 minutes).

Interviewer: "What languages have you worked with exactly; what is your background in CS language wise?"
Toomin: I use all languages.

According to Wikipedia and Toomin he uses over 500 programming languages.

[worhiper_-_]

Someone seems to have created a ton of alt accounts to rig the voting, look at this... lol


https://archive.is/bQzIL

[hdbuck]

Someone seems to have created a ton of alt accounts to rig the voting, look at this... lol


https://archive.is/bQzIL

LMAO

"Give Coinbase Full Control Over Bitcoin Development"

164 fully agree..

[worhiper_-_]

Someone seems to have created a ton of alt accounts to rig the voting, look at this... lol


https://archive.is/bQzIL

LMAO

"Give Coinbase Full Control Over Bitcoin Development"

164 fully agree..

Yeah, it's funny how tomministas were using consider.it as a serious voting platform prior to this. With foundations like that, what could go wrong with something as simple as a bitcoin fork?  amirite?

[jonald_fyookball]

Someone seems to have created a ton of alt accounts to rig the voting, look at this... lol


https://archive.is/bQzIL

LMAO

"Give Coinbase Full Control Over Bitcoin Development"

164 fully agree..

Yeah, it's funny how tomministas were using consider.it as a serious voting platform prior to this. With foundations like that, what could go wrong with something as simple as a bitcoin fork?  amirite?

I wouldn't want Coinbase to have full control over Bitcoin development any more than I would want Blockstream to have full control.  In fact, less so.

[hdbuck]

Someone seems to have created a ton of alt accounts to rig the voting, look at this... lol


https://archive.is/bQzIL

LMAO

"Give Coinbase Full Control Over Bitcoin Development"

164 fully agree..

Yeah, it's funny how tomministas were using consider.it as a serious voting platform prior to this. With foundations like that, what could go wrong with something as simple as a bitcoin fork?   amirite?

nothing new tho..



what can go wrong indeed?! ^^

[brg444]

wow did he really say that?

And he obviously was referring to Bitcoin Classic?

wow

No he didn't, they are just photoshopped, brg444 is a well known liar

http://slack.bitcoincore.org/logs/general/2016-01-23/

You can find it here.

What a despicable individual you are HostFat, shameless liar 

[CIYAM]

They would rather 'die' than admit to being wrong so everything is futile. I do not want to waste any more time on such individuals even though I've really tried helping them.

I feel for you - unfortunately these people are not genuine as they are not interested in actually learning anything but instead posting incorrect information and just telling everyone else that they are right (it is also possible that they are being paid to post nonsense by those with vested interests).

This is why you don't have software developed by consensus.

Luckily I think that no-one actually gives a flying fuck about what is posted by such people in this forum (already hardly any technical people bother using this forum now so I doubt that these posts are having the slightest bit of influence with those that are actually doing the development work and I would very much doubt any respectable investment companies would spend their time reading the garbage posted here either).

[QuestionAuthority]

They would rather 'die' than admit to being wrong so everything is futile. I do not want to waste any more time on such individuals even though I've really tried helping them.

I feel for you - unfortunately these people are not genuine as they are not interested in actually learning anything but instead posting incorrect information and just telling everyone else that they are right (it is also possible that they are being paid to post nonsense by those with vested interests).

This is why you don't have software developed by consensus.

Luckily I think that no-one actually gives a flying fuck about what is posted by such people in this forum (already hardly any technical people bother using this forum now so I doubt that these posts are having the slightest bit of influence with those that are actually doing the development work).

That's exactly what I said, no one with any control or power is here. This thread is just pissing on yourself in a dark suit (it gives you a warm feeling all over but nobody notices).

[hdbuck]

wow did he really say that?

And he obviously was referring to Bitcoin Classic?

wow

No he didn't, they are just photoshopped, brg444 is a well known liar

http://slack.bitcoincore.org/logs/general/2016-01-23/

You can find it here.

What a despicable individual you are HostFat, shameless liar 

[hdbuck]

They would rather 'die' than admit to being wrong so everything is futile. I do not want to waste any more time on such individuals even though I've really tried helping them.

I feel for you - unfortunately these people are not genuine as they are not interested in actually learning anything but instead posting incorrect information and just telling everyone else that they are right (it is also possible that they are being paid to post nonsense by those with vested interests).

This is why you don't have software developed by consensus.

Luckily I think that no-one actually gives a flying fuck about what is posted by such people in this forum (already hardly any technical people bother using this forum now so I doubt that these posts are having the slightest bit of influence with those that are actually doing the development work).

That's exactly what I said, no one with any control or power is here. This thread is just pissing on yourself in a dark suit (it gives you a warm feeling all over but nobody notices).

This forum, and as every other social media, is "noise".

And "noise" has always been used to rule/manipulate/govern the herd. (needless to remind you that reddit is an MIT product - besides the killing of its founder Aaron Swartz, Google some InQTel weaponized corporation for mass dominance etc...)

Now whilst there is no doubt that the USG infiltrated, if not compromised bitcoin's public speakers (such as gavin), it is natural and healthy that people respond to the cheap socialist "bitocin is going to save the world with infinite transactions and mass adoption" propaganda.

Otherwise, people like the toomins scammers brothers  or charlatans a la peter r would have won the argument by no opposition.

Otoh as bitcoin rely on mathematics and raw energy, it is true that the dialogue/arguments are mostly useless.

People vote with their nodes and speculate with their money, and only selfish interests prevails when it comes to upgrade (or not) the protocol.


edit: and it least, this forum is way more entertaining and way less pitiful than the 50 loosers voting on that consider.it website or sucking up on the corporations big balls over at the VERified forum.


edit edit: notice the 1431 'other' client nodes, which are a perfect base to counter any contentious forks.
(and it is not the ~500 AWS SPV Redditard nodes that will threaten the integrity of the network's consensus)