ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[steeev]

ha! they all come trooping out -ha!

[1714835742]

1714835742

[Lauda]

ha! they all come trooping out -ha!

Is it not obvious which are the paid shills and which are uneducated trolls? The picture should be pretty clear by now. Don't expect this to be over though, another controversial HF might be just around the corner!

Why would you frame it this way ? You really are losing a lot of credibility.

He's a failed troll that I've put on ignore long ago because he fails to understand basic concepts no matter how many times you explain it to him. You would be better off spending your time doing something else.

Say Kool-Aid again,

[madjules007]

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?

Non-mining nodes are essential to security and decentralization. That doesn't mean that we have good (or complete) information about node counts. The former is a statement about how miners' selfish interests are balanced. The latter is just an acknowledgment that nodes can be Sybils -- that node count, particular over the short term, is not the most realistic measure of node proportions among incompatible softwares. One indication that a Sybil attack is occurring right now: comparing to overall node counts 1 month ago, when there were no Classic nodes, 65% of Classic nodes are "new", i.e. not Core nodes switching to Classic, which is contrary to the larger trend in node health. The picture is further obscured by that fact that pseudonode (NotXT) was released for Classic, so presumably people are also actively spoofing Classic nodes with the intention of later shutting them down.

[steeev]

ha! they all come trooping out -ha!

Is it not obvious which are the paid shills and which are uneducated trolls? The picture should be pretty clear by now. Don't expect this to be over though, another controversial HF might be just around the corner!

Why would you frame it this way ? You really are losing a lot of credibility.

He's a failed troll that I've put on ignore long ago because he fails to understand basic concepts no matter how many times you explain it to him. You would be better off spending your time doing something else.

Say Kool-Aid again,

i just thought it was a tag team thing - badcop/worsecop...

handling them must be like having an obstreperous dwarf by the forehead...

[franky1]

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.

nah. segwit PROPOSES 1.7 equivelent worth of transactions... and then 2 months later bloat up transactions with more opcodes and features. bringing transactions per second back down..

EG
imagine that there are 2000 transactions potential for 1mb, thats 4000 potential for 2mb
with segwit its 3400 for 2 months and then 2000 once all their fiddly additions are added.

if you dont believe me. ask the dev's on IRC how many bytes are needed to add things like payment codes. how many bytes the ID is in the witness merkle to link back into the main merkle. (hint, its not less than 70 bytes)

however a 2mb+segwit is 4000 transactions + all the features

[madjules007]

nah. segwit PROPOSES 1.7 equivelent worth of transactions... and then 2 months later bloat up transactions with more opcodes and features. bringing transactions per second back down..

Have you proposed a plan to stop the use of multi-sig transactions? Because they represent more "bloat" than standard transactions. Should the goal of bitcoin be to prevent the development of any and all useful features that may take up more size than standard transactions?

It seems more sensible for developers to optimize such increased throughput. Hence...segwit.

[BitUsher]

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.

nah. segwit PROPOSES 1.7 equivelent worth of transactions... and then 2 months later bloat up transactions with more opcodes and features. bringing transactions per second back down..

EG
imagine that there are 2000 transactions potential for 1mb, thats 4000 potential for 2mb
with segwit its 3400 for 2 months and then 2000 once all their fiddly additions are added.

however a 2mb+segwit is 4000 transactions + all the features

Ahh... well feels like deja vu again...

Your math doesn't add up , and you are incorrectly speculating on manners you have already been corrected on. You simply don't care about the facts when you are repeatedly corrected thus can be ignored.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bitcoin's R3KT. Try some Moneros maybe?

No and no.

The shoe already dropped. The exodus into altcoins is underway. Here, have an Ether?

[madjules007]

I've corrected Franky's math more times than I can count at this point. I've come to the conclusion that he is either completely hopeless or a paid shill.

nah. segwit PROPOSES 1.7 equivelent worth of transactions... and then 2 months later bloat up transactions with more opcodes and features. bringing transactions per second back down..

Have you proposed a plan to stop the use of multi-sig transactions? Because they represent more "bloat" than standard transactions. Should the goal of bitcoin be to prevent the development of any and all useful features that may take up more size than standard transactions?

It seems more sensible for developers to optimize such increased throughput. Hence...segwit.

learn to read

however a 2mb+segwit is 4000 transactions + all the features

Wat?

Are you suggesting that segwit does not serve to optimize the increased throughput of multi-sig transactions? I suspect my comment went completely over your head.

[franky1]

Ahh... well feels like deja vu again...

Your math doesn't add up , and you are incorrectly speculating on manners you have already been corrected on. You simply don't care about the facts when you are repeatedly corrected thus can be ignored.

my maths does not assume the average of 4000 transactions is 1.7mb with segwit.(because i know its more than 1.7mb)

i just used the 1.7mb as it was a number you assumed so i was just playing on your mindset to get to the mainpoint, because you would have knit picked more if i argued that 1.7mb was wrong

the reason i have said that 1mb of current style transactions is 2000 average. because that is based on the average transaction count of the blocks that actually bother to fill blocks. and before you knit pick ill clear the matter up.. ITS AN AVERAGE, NOT A HARD RULE

[franky1]

Are you suggesting that segwit does not serve to optimize the increased throughput of multi-sig transactions? I suspect my comment went completely over your head.

it didnt go over my head, i just think that YOU have not thought deeply enough about all the factors and that your point has not even grown enough to be above your ankle..

so i stepped over it because you wont understand it

[blunderer]

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?

Non-mining nodes are essential to security and decentralization. That doesn't mean that we have good (or complete) information about node counts. The former is a statement about how miners' selfish interests are balanced.

All the non-mining nodes wallets currently running could be replicated within ... I'll let your buddy answer

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers.

The latter is just an acknowledgment that nodes can be Sybils -- that node count, particular over the short term, is not the most realistic measure of node proportions among incompatible softwares. One indication that a Sybil attack is occurring right now: comparing to overall node counts 1 month ago, when there were no Classic nodes, 65% of Classic nodes are "new", i.e. not Core nodes switching to Classic, which is contrary to the larger trend in node health. The picture is further obscured by that fact that pseudonode (NotXT) was released for Classic, so presumably people are also actively spoofing Classic nodes with the intention of later shutting them down.

TL;DR: Bitcoin relies on "nodes [...] essential to security and decentralization," a mechanism both trivial to bypass/defeat by creating legit nodes on VM instances & spoofing.
Faith restored, sinking all my money into this shit

[steeev]

any of you boys ever heard the fraze

'it's all over bar the shouting'   ?

[madjules007]

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?

Non-mining nodes are essential to security and decentralization. That doesn't mean that we have good (or complete) information about node counts. The former is a statement about how miners' selfish interests are balanced.

All the non-mining nodes wallets currently running could be replicated within ... I'll let your buddy answer

That's a lot harder to argue. I said data on nodes is incomplete -- not altogether useless. Operating a node means expending resources on bandwidth, storage -- those have costs. That's why the key to this data is in short term vs. long term analysis. It would be astronomically more expensive to operate 5000-8000 Core nodes over the past two years than it would be to spin up 800 Classic nodes over the past week. That the data is not completely transparent does not mean we should ignore it entirely.

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers.

The latter is just an acknowledgment that nodes can be Sybils -- that node count, particular over the short term, is not the most realistic measure of node proportions among incompatible softwares. One indication that a Sybil attack is occurring right now: comparing to overall node counts 1 month ago, when there were no Classic nodes, 65% of Classic nodes are "new", i.e. not Core nodes switching to Classic, which is contrary to the larger trend in node health. The picture is further obscured by that fact that pseudonode (NotXT) was released for Classic, so presumably people are also actively spoofing Classic nodes with the intention of later shutting them down.

TL;DR: Bitcoin relies on "nodes [...] essential to security and decentralization," a mechanism both trivial to bypass/defeat by creating legit nodes on VM instances & spoofing.
Faith restored, sinking all my money into this shit

Nothing here indicates that the node consensus mechanism is trivial or easy to bypass. Pseudonodes aren't even operating with the new fork's consensus rules. What we're saying is that the numbers can give the appearance that Classic has significant node support even if it doesn't.

This is why node centralization is relevant. What used to be over 10,000 nodes is now closer to 5,000. The more bandwidth pressure we put on nodes, the less nodes we have, and the easier it is to mount a Sybil attack, such as the one Classic backers are currently mounting.

[madjules007]

Are you suggesting that segwit does not serve to optimize the increased throughput of multi-sig transactions? I suspect my comment went completely over your head.

it didnt go over my head, i just think that YOU have not thought deeply enough about all the factors and that your point has not even grown enough to be above your ankle..

so i stepped over it because you wont understand it

As I thought.

So you are here complaining that future features will bloat the blockchain. Never mind that multi-sig transactions bloat the blockchain -- and that segwit was developed to optimize them.

Again, let's optimize features (like Confidential Transactions) to account for the increased throughput they may require. Let's not use them as a baseless excuse to push a contentious hard fork.

[franky1]

Nothing here indicates that the node consensus mechanism is trivial or easy to bypass. Pseudonodes aren't even operating with the new fork's consensus rules. What we're saying is that the numbers can give the appearance that Classic has significant node support even if it doesn't.

This is why node centralization is relevant. What used to be over 10,000 nodes is now closer to 5,000. The more bandwidth pressure we put on nodes, the less nodes we have, and the easier it is to mount a Sybil attack, such as the one Classic backers are currently mounting.

segwit 'no witness mode' takes a full node away from being a fullnode and into being just a compatible node.

centralization is where there is only one source of code. so blockstream wanting to be the only source of a fullnode. is them centralizing and then lowering the distribution of fullnodes by allowing a non-witness mode and wrongfully telling them its ok to not accept witness data

as for saying that everyone that wants 2mb is a "classic backer" shows your narrowmindedness..

oh and if you think that blockstream is winning the debate.. ill use lauda's data from an earlier post (grey and yellow show recent decisions on direction)

[madjules007]

segwit 'no witness mode' takes a full node away from being a fullnode and into being just a compatible node.

centralization is where there is only one source of code. so blockstream wanting to be the only source of a fullnode. is them centralizing and then lowering the distribution of fullnodes by allowing a non-witness mode and wrongfully telling them its ok to not accept witness data

as for saying that everyone that wants 2mb is a "classic backer" shows your narrowmindedness..

Narrow-minded? What other 2MB software is currently available?

Regarding the signature chain:

In a nutshell, and IMO, there are two ways to approach the increased cost (upload bandwidth) of increased throughput, all else equal. We can externalize the cost to all nodes -- but then we can expect a drop in all nodes. Alternatively, we can distribute the cost to those who are using it (and who can pay for it).

Can you provide an estimate of the cost for an attacker to exploit the signature chain, if this is a real threat? If you are suggesting that segwit is a security threat, could you provide examples?

If you are suggesting that trust is an issue, please provide some evidence of a potential attack vector and explain how it could be exploited.

[watashi-kokoto]

Toomimtanic is sinking. It's time to pay homage to Gavin, at least he tried. I welcome every proposal to move Bitcoin forward, even if it turns out later to be wrong.

[marcus_of_augustus]

any of you boys ever heard the fraze

'it's all over bar the shouting'   ?

it doesn't matter because they are getting paid to do the shouting, win lose or draw ... wonder when the shills contracts run out? then we'll finally get some peace, hopefully this weekend when the puppet masters realise they are throwing good btc away on a fool's errand.

[madjules007]

Given that many of the XT shills reinvented themselves as Classic shills, I imagine they'll be back to rally around the next fail fork. Too bad for them that "Classic" was a pretty good name. I doubt the next re-branding will sound so snazzy.