ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[iCEBREAKER]

-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.

[1715192553]

1715192553

[1715192553]

1715192553

[1715192553]

1715192553

[maokoto]

Too much battle about the blocksizes... but bitcoin keeps on working good... perhaps we should relax a bit with all this.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

Sorry folks, I'm in the dark here. Who exactly made this proposal?

[Fatman3001]

[BitUsher]

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.

Sorry folks, I'm in the dark here. Who exactly made this proposal?

In one of Garzik's speeches he refereed to the "fidelity problem" suggesting that Fidelity could possibly be interested in using bitcoin but is holding off because bitcoin's lack of capacity made it unsuitable. Greg just filled us in on the details that was left out of Jeff's speech and shed new light what Fidelity had in mind with Bitcoin.

Here is the speech -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3h31m13s

Thank goodness we avoided Fidelity spamming the blockchain without paying tx fees.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

Sorry folks, I'm in the dark here. Who exactly made this proposal?

In one of Garzik's speeches he refereed to the "fidelity problem" suggesting that Fidelity could possibly be interested in using bitcoin but is holding off because bitcoin's lack of capacity made it unsuitable. Greg just filled us in on the details that was left out of Jeff's speech and shed new light what Fidelity had in mind with Bitcoin.

Here is the speech -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3h31m13s

Thank goodness we avoided Fidelity spamming the blockchain without paying tx fees.

Hmm. Thanks.

How did we stop this from happening??

[Thatstinks]

Stupid question maybe but I missed the reason...

Why is everyone calling bitcoin_classic, Toomincoin ?

[gmaxwell]

Presumably because "Bitcoin Classic" is probably the most offensively newspeak-ish name in the history of software development.

[Thatstinks]

Presumably because "Bitcoin Classic" is probably the most offensively newspeak-ish name in the history of software development.

Ok so association with the Toomincoin name is a way of expressing a theory without using the btc classic name?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Can anybody explain to me in small words how it's possible for Fidelity or whoever to have planned to send 0-fee 0-value transactions? Is that a bug?

[blunderer]

Presumably because "Bitcoin Classic" is probably the most offensively newspeak-ish name in the history of software development.

Adds a dash of salt to the wound, don'it?

[gmaxwell]

Can anybody explain to me in small words how it's possible for Fidelity or whoever to have planned to send 0-fee 0-value transactions? Is that a bug?

Because the project was to issue securitized assets in "a blockchain" to allow transfer among users.

The bitcoin protocol allows the creation of and transfer of zero value coins. From a technical perspective this is quite useful, for example-- if there were ever a desire to increase the granularity of coins or deploy confidential transactions in a backwards compatible way.. this would be used. Zero value coins could also be used as semaphors in complex smart contracts.

But in the present without applications it's an obnoxious DOS vector and so Bitcoin Core won't relay or mine them; but miners can easily bypass that restriction and already do so.

Plus, even if zero was blocked blocked... the alternative would be to use 1e-8 BTC payments which is so tiny as to be almost nothing. (A single Bitcoin in 1e-8 BTC payments would use 6GB of blockchain space).  The point that these "applications" can be done without any use of the Bitcoin currency _at all_ just lays bare what an abuse of the system they are.

BlindMayorBitcorn, I can't help but observe that flooding a thread with tripe-- as you appear to be doing-- when it isn't going your way is literally straight out of the GCHQ public communication subversion playbook. Also, did you forget to switch accounts? You're responding to yourself.

[iCEBREAKER]

Stupid question maybe but I missed the reason...

Why is everyone calling bitcoin_classic, Toomincoin ?

Because Toomin has the "final call" like Hearn does with XT.

[Peter R]

Can anybody explain to me in small words how it's possible for Fidelity or whoever to have planned to send 0-fee 0-value transactions? Is that a bug?

Fidelity was planning to pay market price for the block space it used.  

To get a feel for the market price of block space, the average fee per kilobyte paid in 2015-Q2 was 320 bits/kB.  At an exchange rate of $400/BTC, this equates to a cost of $128,000.00 / GB.  

It is interesting to compare this to the cost of AWS S3 storage (presently $0.03 / GB per month).  Since Blockchain storage is "forever" and the AWS storage is paid monthly, we need to calculate the net present value (NPV) of storing 1 GB of data "forever" to make an apples-to-apples comparison.  Assuming an interest rate of 6%, the NPV for storing data in the cloud forever works out to $6 / GB.  

So, storing data "forever" in the blockchain is presently approximately 20,000 times more expensive than storing it "forever" in the cloud.  In other words, it's not cheap!

[Thatstinks]

Stupid question maybe but I missed the reason...

Why is everyone calling bitcoin_classic, Toomincoin ?

Because Toomin has the "final call" like Hearn does with XT.

This final call is due to voting share based on mining share?

[iCEBREAKER]

Stupid question maybe but I missed the reason...

Why is everyone calling bitcoin_classic, Toomincoin ?

Because Toomin has the "final call" like Hearn does with XT.

This final call is due to voting share based on mining share?

No, the final call is due to control of the code repository.

[iCEBREAKER]

basil00

For the heck of it I've updated PseudoNode with "Classic support":

Code:

pseudonode --coin=bitcoin-classic

The point is (and always was) that node counts can be easily faked and should not count for anything.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/44k1jo/how_does_gavin_know_there_will_be_thousands_of/czquq39

 

[iCEBREAKER]

So.  Fekkin.  Rekt.   

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012412.html

[bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes
Samson Mow samson.mow at btcc.com
Tue Feb 9 05:11:56 UTC 2016

Gavin, please don't quote that list on the Classic website. It's horribly
inaccurate and misleading to the general public.

> That testing is happening by the exchange, library, wallet, etc providers
> themselves. There is a list on the Classic home page:
>
> https://bitcoinclassic.com/

I know for a fact that most companies you list there have no intention to
run Classic, much less test it. You should not mix support for 2MB with
support for Classic, or if people say they welcome a fork, to mean they
support Classic.

[BitUsher]

http://bravetheworld.com/2016/02/09/faith-bitcoin-restored/

Relevant.

[Lauda]

http://bravetheworld.com/2016/02/09/faith-bitcoin-restored/

Relevant.

If the block size debate has demonstrated anything, it's that there's a fundamental lack of understanding about how Bitcoin actually works. If you're going to the moon, would you like your spaceship built by a handful of informed engineers, or by the average tax payer?

That's the correct way of saying it.