ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Lauda]

^^Hand-waving?

Fake nodes as always run by a few individuals. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

[BitUsher]

^^Hand-waving?

Fake nodes as always. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Expected Sybil attack, I expect those nodes to grow higher while mined classic block to be below 5% at most.

[Lauda]

Expected Sybil attack, I expect those nodes to grow higher while mined classic block to be below 5% at most.

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers. As always, the node count only matters to the 'forkers' when it starts growing in their favor.

[bargainbin]

Expected Sybil attack, I expect those nodes to grow higher while mined classic block to be below 5% at most.

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers. As always, the node count only matters to the 'forkers' when it starts growing in their favor.

But... But I was told non-mining nodes are essential to Bitcoin security and decentralizationings
And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked?

[Sir Lagsalot]

We are no longer being ignored or scoffed at , but actively attacked and we must recognize and not underestimate our enemies.

Seems like Gavin has joined the dark side.

What makes you say so?

Still unknown and we shouldn't unjustly insinuate, but the fact that he worked with and partnered with Hearn and the fact that he was trying to push through a contentious HF with such a low threshold which is very dangerous should make people concerned and slightly suspicious.

Hopefully in time he can redeem himself to the community, and admit he made some mistakes.

More like he is a statist piece of shiet.

CIA meeting, MIT (eg USG) payroll, pushing contentious hardfork using (NSA) social media engineering tactics, and also he has been on the town council thing of Amherst mass for years. He is literally a politician. A big polished TURD.

Gavin also went before the CFR, that gang of war criminals and wannabe world-rulers, to tell them all about Bitcoin. Shady behaviour.

Ah well, seems everything is working out for the best despite Gavhearn et al... Hey, Peter Rizun, whatever happened to your smug "I eat small blockers for breakfast" personal text? I always liked that, reminded me of this Happy Gilmore scene.

[Lauda]

But... But I was told non-mining nodes are essential to Bitcoin security and decentralizationings
And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked?

Everything is important, albeit without the miners you can't do anything either. The number of nodes was never a good metric as there isn't a good way to count all of them. In addition to this it is easy to set up a lot of fake nodes, ergo inaccurate metric. Keep drinking the kool-aid and trying to troll.

[VeritasSapere]

There is something positive we can deduce from this letter. This group of miners is clearly demanding that Core gives them a date for a hardfork blocksize increase within three weeks. I suspect that if Core fails to deliver this request/demand from the miners I suspect they will switch over to classic or just change the max blocksize parameter in their own custom node software themselves like they said they would.

There was a very good post by Dr Washington Sanchez regarding this letter, thought I would post it here since I suspect some people here at least will appreciate its sanity.

The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.

I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB.

Bitcoin Core have had ample opportunity for over a year to schedule a hard fork to increase in the block size. It has taken a very real threat of a hard fork for them to signal progress on this front.

Segregated witness, while an awesome improvement to protocol, is not a long-term scaling solution. Moreover, it is a smokescreen for Bitcoin Core’s true intention to limit transaction capacity using the block size. This is euphemistically referred to as creating a ‘fee market’.

In reality, the use of the block size to retard the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, to increase fees, remains a value Bitcoin Core has not deviated from. Unless they explicitly abandon the idea of creating a fee market, Bitcoin Core will achieve a real hard fork in the economic properties of Bitcoin.

Furthermore, a token increase in the block size now by Bitcoin Core will only plague the community in the future, as they have no intention of keeping the block size comfortably above the market demand for on-chain transactions.

[Amph]

^^Hand-waving?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch


https://coin.dance/nodes

those are bitcoin cores node running the current version, not the future one with seg wit

those node still need to decide if they want to be with core again or with classic or whatever they want

[Lauda]

There is something positive we can deduce from this letter. This group of miners is clearly demanding that Core gives them a date for a hardfork blocksize increase within three weeks. I suspect that if Core fails to deliver this request/demand from the miners

It does not say that. You're trying to save your precious 'forks' that are already dead.

SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.

I suspect they will switch over to classic or just change the max blocksize parameter in their own custom node software themselves like they said they would.

Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).

Keep living in denial.

[brg444]

There is something positive we can deduce from this letter. This group of miners is clearly demanding that Core gives them a date for a hardfork blocksize increase within three weeks. I suspect that if Core fails to deliver this request/demand from the miners I suspect they will switch over to classic or just change the max blocksize parameter in their own custom node software themselves like they said they would.

There was a very good post by Dr Washington Sanchez regarding this letter, thought I would post it here since I suspect some people here at least will appreciate its sanity.

The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.

I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB.

Bitcoin Core have had ample opportunity for over a year to schedule a hard fork to increase in the block size. It has taken a very real threat of a hard fork for them to signal progress on this front.

Segregated witness, while an awesome improvement to protocol, is not a long-term scaling solution. Moreover, it is a smokescreen for Bitcoin Core’s true intention to limit transaction capacity using the block size. This is euphemistically referred to as creating a ‘fee market’.

In reality, the use of the block size to retard the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, to increase fees, remains a value Bitcoin Core has not deviated from. Unless they explicitly abandon the idea of creating a fee market, Bitcoin Core will achieve a real hard fork in the economic properties of Bitcoin.

Furthermore, a token increase in the block size now by Bitcoin Core will only plague the community in the future, as they have no intention of keeping the block size comfortably above the market demand for on-chain transactions.

Feeling uneasy about your "economic majority" now are you?

Of course you'd post that piece of garbage from Dr. Wacko.

[iCEBREAKER]

Well , I am glad this is over and we can move on to improving the bitcoin ecosystem?

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.3219xm7af

Thx for the link. That really is the end of it.

We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).

IOW, everybody (even the people in The Community^®) is sick of Gavin's shit.  

[steeev]

kudos to icebreaker, lauda and gmax for stamina and resolve in this and the other related threads amidst plenty o' spooks...

a wave goodbye to hearn, and stern face for gavin (aka yesterday's man), and garzik (duh, actually used to listen to that guy...)

and one more image, couldn't resist...

[knight22]

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

[Lauda]

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

Irrelevant right now, they are part of the minority. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

[knight22]

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

Irrelevant right now, they are part of the minority. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

[Lauda]

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

Nobody is "shit scared", nor is this thread about 2 MB blocks. Stop trying to divert the argument. ToominCoin is officially over. What's the next controversial power grab that you're going to support, Bitcoin Original maybe? It would not be bad to start copyrighting names and buying domains. 

[blunderer]

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

Nobody is "shit scared", nor is this thread about 2 MB blocks. Stop trying to divert the argument. ToominCoin is officially over. ...

Not sure what a Toomincoin is, but Classic is bangin'!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bitcoin's R3KT. Try some Moneros maybe?

[Lauda]

Not sure what a Toomincoin is, but Classic is bangin'!

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers. That's some fine kool-aid that you've been drinking.

Bitcoin's R3KT. Try some Moneros maybe?

No and no.

[BitUsher]

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

Nobody is "shit scared", nor is this thread about 2 MB blocks. Stop trying to divert the argument. ToominCoin is officially over. What's the next controversial power grab that you're going to support, Bitcoin Original maybe? It would not be bad to start copyrighting names and buying domains.  

this whole topic is a shit scared tactic by blockstream fanboys to turn the 2mb capacity increase into some political debate.

once you wash away the policical debate and concentrate on the desire and need of 2mb, and then debunk all the crap blockstreamers say that 2mb wont work.. you soon see through blockstreamers schemes. and realise 2mb is not a problem. but blockstreamers refuse to concede and do whats right. their agenda or death is their mentality

Why would you frame it this way ? If you are to ignore all the other differences in proposals the difference in capacity is 1.7-2MB for Core vs 2MB for classic.... In other words shouldn't you revise your statements to discuss other differences because we clearly are supporting segwit with 1.7-2 MB? You really are losing a lot of credibility.