ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Lauda]

This has been recently done .. now we have a new implementation forked off in a new repo -

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic95/bitcoinclassic95
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43xcdp/i_created_a_new_version_of_bitcoin_classic_now/

Who's the creator behind that one? Apparently he doesn't even know how to change the version bits so we can already forget about that one.

It is absurd to me that Softforks are set at 95 % before the fork initiates and some classic devs think that 75% is acceptable for a hard fork.

Apparently they're willing to damage the network because of their own agenda.

[alani123]

Gavin keeps talking about the urgent need of a blocksize increase while just few hours ago we reached an all time high for transactions per day. A whooping 242129 transactions, in a single day! And the mempool is just 2,446.50 Kb big and instant confirmation fee is less than 50 Sat per Kb.

[Carlton Banks]

Lol no, mah nigga,

Um, excuse me?

[bargainbin]

Lol no, mah nigga,

Um, excuse me?

Your old Samsung cut off the text? Again? Oh well, another try:

Still trying to run a full node on that old Samsung smartphone, I take it?

Still trying to pretend that big-blockism is all about everyone transacting on-chain?   The idea that old smartphones could handle your plan for infinite blocksizes should really be a central part of your rhetoric, no?  

Lol no, mah nigga, just trying to keep the Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System dream alive for the Great Unwashed. 'Coz once they figure out we've been selling them a story, I do believe they'll lynch us

[BitUsher]

Gavin keeps talking about the urgent need of a blocksize increase while just few hours ago we reached an all time high for transactions per day. A whooping 242129 transactions, in a single day! And the mempool is just 2,446.50 Kb big and instant confirmation fee is less than 50 Sat per Kb.

It is obvious that the disaster from overfilled blocks isn't true, and there is still enough capacity to process txs cheaply. The data is clear and undeniable regardless of how often the misleading statement that "blocks are full" is repeated.

Let me defend Gavin and Jeff for a moment to empathize and understand a big blockers mentality:

What they are concerned about is stunting potential growth in volume, especially in anticipation of a new bubble which is likely to happen this year, which will prompt many new users to adopt bitcoin. Another concern for them is the "Fidelity Problem" where certain institutions and business models simply won't directly use bitcoin because it cannot handle the volume that is required. In their mind they would rather have an average of 5-10% full blocks to insure that in moments of spiked usage there is no backlog of tx's or fee market created.

These are valid concerns , but ones which are focused on short term growth at the expense of long term scalability in a secure and decentralized matter. The mentality that assumes that we can simply keep increasing the maxBlockSize to solve the problems and that pymt processors with their inadequate mempool security algos for 0 conf is the way forward really aren't understanding the big picture and limitations of the technology.

If Coinbase/Bitpay don't get on-board and quickly start to expedite the development of payment channels (whether Impiulse , LN , or others) they are going to be in a world of pain because Peter Todd is soliciting interest for someone to create a nice GUI for his double spend scripts. The fact that Classic supporters don't see this as a problem and believe that ignoring the implementation of payment channels (Segwit fixing Malleability is crucial to progress in this arena) is fine by delaying segwit in favor of a 2MB HF is dangerously irresponsible and ironically places their supporting payment processors in jeopardy of losing everything. If they want to keep spouting off nonsense about LN and conspiracy theories , than fine ... please fork LN or further develop Impulse (bitpay) right away because it isn't RBF that is at fault but in trusting 0conf in general without secured payment channels.

[Carlton Banks]

Your old Samsung cut off the text? Again? Oh well, another try:

Right, I going to try with you again also (god knows why): that kind of language is never appropriate with me, I should imagine others find it similarly unpalatable. Stop. And you got something else wrong, my Samsung phone is brand new. As you were.

[VeritasSapere]

Gavin keeps talking about the urgent need of a blocksize increase while just few hours ago we reached an all time high for transactions per day. A whooping 242129 transactions, in a single day! And the mempool is just 2,446.50 Kb big and instant confirmation fee is less than 50 Sat per Kb.

It is obvious that the disaster from overfilled blocks isn't true, and there is still enough capacity to process txs cheaply. The data is clear and undeniable regardless of how often the misleading statement that "blocks are full" is repeated.

Let me defend Gavin and Jeff for a moment to empathize and understand a big blockers mentality:

What they are concerned about is stunting potential growth in volume, especially in anticipation of a new bubble which is likely to happen this year, which will prompt many new users to adopt bitcoin. Another concern for them is the "Fidelity Problem" where certain institutions and business models simply won't directly use bitcoin because it cannot handle the volume that is required. In their mind they would rather have an average of 5-10% full blocks to insure that in moments of spiked usage there is no backlog of tx's or fee market created.

These are valid concerns , but ones which are focused on short term growth at the expense of long term scalability in a secure and decentralized matter. The mentality that assumes that we can simply keep increasing the maxBlockSize to solve the problems and that pymt processors with their inadequate mempool security algos for 0 conf is the way forward really aren't understanding the big picture and limitations of the technology.

If Coinbase/Bitpay don't get on-board and quickly start to expedite the development of payment channels (whether Impiulse , LN , or others) they are going to be in a world of pain because Peter Todd is soliciting interest for someone to create a nice GUI for his double spend scripts. The fact that Classic supporters don't see this as a problem and believe that ignoring the implementation of payment channels (Segwit fixing Malleability is crucial to progress in this arena) is fine by delaying segwit in favor of a 2MB HF is dangerously irresponsible and ironically places their supporting payment processors in jeopardy of losing everything. If they want to keep spouting off nonsense about LN and conspiracy theories , than fine ... please fork LN or further develop Impulse (bitpay) right away because it isn't RBF that is at fault but in trusting 0conf in general without secured payment channels.

It still holds true that if the blocks fill up it would make transacting on the Bitcoin network directly much more expensive and unreliable. I would consider this to be a disaster for Bitcoin over the long term if this problem is not fixed, this can only be fixed by increasing the blocksize. Otherwise we will simply see Bitcoin become out competed and obsolesced.

Short term growth is absolutely critical for long term security and decentralization, this is something that I think many small blockists do not understand. I also think that you are putting limitations on the technology that are not really there, for some people this is ideological and others have been lead to believe that this is really the case. Increasing the blocksize to two megabyte will not significantly impact the security and decentralization of the protocol, I actually expect it to have the opposite effect. The only reason I can think of keep the one megabyte limit in place is to bring about a "fee market" now, which is a radically different economic policy compared to the original vision of Bitcoin.

If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.

In this thread Satoshi was actually discussing zero confirmation and how it can work for retail situations.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

I suppose Peter Todd can keep trying to break zero confirmation, payment processors like BitPay are very good at what they do. I am confident that they will be able to continue to supply the service that they provide. Which does require a blocksize increase eventually, since without a blocksize increase most use cases for Bitcoin do break, Bitcoin was never designed to operate near such an arbitrary blocksize limit, when it was introduced as a temporary spam measure it was way above the actual transaction volume, this is where the blocksize limit belongs today as well. It should not be used as a tool of central economic planing by a centralized technocracy. I think that Bitcoin represent trust without centralized authority, trusting Core with the future of Bitcoin is antithetical to this original vision.

[VeritasSapere]

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it there so that it is easy to read and find. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

[watashi-kokoto]

It keeps happening and haters gonna hate.

[bargainbin]

Your old Samsung cut off the text? Again? Oh well, another try:

Right, I going to try with you again also (god knows why): that kind of language is never appropriate with me < >

K, I'll be gentler & reword.

Still trying to run a full node on that old Samsung smartphone, I take it?

Still trying to pretend that big-blockism is all about everyone transacting on-chain?   The idea that old smartphones could handle your plan for infinite blocksizes should really be a central part of your rhetoric, no?  

Lol no mah nigga, sweetie,  just trying to keep the Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System dream alive for the Great Unwashed. 'Coz once they figure out we've been selling them a story, I do believe they'll lynch us

Chin up, Buttercup!

[WestHarrison]

>Be a miner, making money due to almost free electricity.
>Gamble it all away on a power move by supporting a team that makes decisions based on popularity contests.
>Believe Gavin and Jeff when they say it'll work.
>Activate Order66, start mining new Big Blocks.
>Start mining bigger blocks, but they are getting orphaned wtf.mp4
>Spend thousands a day for invalid blocks
>Your face goes pale as you notice that 4 weeks wasn't enough for the entire Full Node ecosystem to upgrade so they are simply rejecting your blocks.
>Go crawling back to twitter and claim you supported Core all along and you hate big blocks.
>You piss yourself as LukeJr's proposal of a PoW change is now a priority due to the miner mutiny.

>Your face when you just lost millions by supporting ToominCoin

[watashi-kokoto]

>Be a miner, making money due to almost free electricity.
>Gamble it all away on a power move by supporting a team that makes decisions based on popularity contests.
>Believe Gavin and Jeff when they say it'll work.
>Activate Order66, start mining new Big Blocks.
>Start mining bigger blocks, but they are getting orphaned wtf.mp4
>Spend thousands a day for invalid blocks
>Your face goes pale as you notice that 4 weeks wasn't enough for the entire Full Node ecosystem to upgrade so they are simply rejecting your blocks.
>Go crawling back to twitter and claim you supported Core all along and you hate big blocks.
>You piss yourself as LukeJr's proposal of a PoW change is now a priority due to the miner mutiny.

>Your face when you just lost millions by supporting ToominCoin

this is nothing.

>be speculator
>during fork, sell 1MB Bitcoin
>invest millions of $ to 2MB Bitcoins
>All miners hop back to 1MB chain after realizing what kind of grave mistake they just did
>Try to move Classic Bitcoins
>0 confirmations
>Classic Bitcoins frozen forever

[iCEBREAKER]

Grand Master Szabo hitting Count Gavin with Force lightning....

[Sir Lagsalot]

I'm not saying Gavin's latest plan is a horrorshow but

[watashi-kokoto]

And the solution to the quadratic slow transaction?


Everyone wants to be the boss who saves the day by increasing the blocksize but hard problems still unsolved.

[iCEBREAKER]

And the solution to the quadratic slow transaction?

Core is using segwit to fix the source of extralinear sig_op validation times.  And we get the amazing power of tree sigs enabled as a bonus.

Classic is using a magic number from Gavin's ass to artificially limit tx size to 100k or something, which he already admitted is a horrible, hacky, future-unfriendly approach.

[watashi-kokoto]

Classic is using a magic number from Gavin's ass to artificially limit tx size to 100k or something, which he already admitted is a horrible, hacky, future-unfriendly approach.

Gavin and company can discuss what they want in their roundtable but they need to understand that without a consensus these proposals cannot be deployed. Another thing they need to understand I hate the branding since discovering Classic was chosen based on the who controls Bitcoin.

I'm working hard on the shill faucet , it will work like a normal faucet but instead of solving captcha the user reviews forum posts, and marks those posted by social media shills.

Prototype:



I believe in a long term this could be useful to Bitcoiners , we can't rely on Theymos forever

[blunderer]

And the solution to the quadratic slow transaction?

Core is using segwit to fix the source of extralinear sig_op validation times.  And we get the amazing power of tree sigs enabled as a bonus.

Classic is using a magic number from Gavin's ass to artificially limit tx size to 100k or something, which he already admitted is a horrible, hacky, future-unfriendly approach.

-Aren't > 100kb transactions already non-standard?
-Why yes they are, blunderer! You're so smart!

[gmaxwell]

Another concern for them is the "Fidelity Problem" where certain institutions and business models simply won't directly use bitcoin because it cannot handle the volume that is required

It's important to speak specifically about what this proposal was.

What they wanted to do was use payments of zero bitcoins to track non-bitcoin related assets by storing their data in the Bitcoin network. No Bitcoins would have been involved in this project, likely not even for fees: bypassing the network anti-spam rules would have required a relationship directly with a miner-- and then they could have been paid directly in fiat (saving them exchange fees).

No remotely sane amount of block size would have reasonably satisfied this application in any case (you'll note that this kind of ask never comes with the requirement spelled out: the business requirement is almost always, "as large as we need"-- something which is fundamentally impossible in a decenteralized network like this).

I think those of us who actually own Bitcoins should be looking at this, with a sigh of relief and not concern-- a situation where the system's costs were increased tens to hundreds fold by someone not using the Bitcoin currency would be potentially devastating to the systems' decentralization. If it means anything at all to us, that project should be considered a great example of why a blocksize limit is important and protective even over miner imposed soft-thresholds.

-Aren't > 100kb transactions already non-standard?
-Why yes they are, blunderer! You're so smart!

Yes, they are.. which means they're available to be used in the future when a need arises. The transactions that are CLTV or P2SH spends used to be non-standard, and now they're frequently used. Prohibiting larger transactions would be a really unfortunate reduction in capability.  Some people don't think so, because they believe that Bitcoin is centrally administered and that all users can be forced to upgrade in less than a month should the administration decide to undo that decision.

[blunderer]

...

-Aren't > 100kb transactions already non-standard?
-Why yes they are, blunderer! You're so smart!

Yes, they are.. which means they're available to be used in the future when a need arises. The transactions that are CLTV or P2SH spends used to be non-standard, and now they're frequently used. Prohibiting larger transactions would be a really unfortunate reduction in capability.  Some people don't think so, because they believe that Bitcoin is centrally administered and that all users can be forced to upgrade in less than a month should the administration decide to undo that decision.

Can you explain what you mean by boldface, and offer an example? Or simply a link, if you've been over it many times.
ty