ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[franky1]

and IF they see 75% of blocks display the desire to upgrade the buffer before the trigger.. then they really need to get their act together.
if after trigger day, and if after 28 days grace period,, core dev's have not released a public available version with the buffer.. then they will be the cause of the fork by not allowing the public to prepare

remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into only making blocks over 1mb
remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into ignoring blocks under 1mb
remember 2000000 max block size limit. is NOT a nuclear button to force miners into making blocks 1.999mb

here's the important one: 2MB max block size limit is a nuclear button to force 1MB nodes to fork off any blocks > 1MB. we're trying to prevent the breakdown of bitcoin as a single ledger of 21 million coins. and youre here musing about the freedom of miners to cause that, while telling us to trust them not to.

what a joke

your not getting it..
try spending a couple days learning more and putting things into scenario's and testing a few theories out. run some simulations..

at 75% orphans will happen.. it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight.. it will cause the new rule miners to orphan off the larger blocks and resync the chains as if the bigger blocks didnt happen.. because they are now following the chain of small blocks.
thats what orphaning is about.

that is where damage is done as double spends can occur where a business accepts 1confirm.. then several blocks later.. that transaction in the block, disappears.(if the small blockers didnt include it yet, which normally they have similar transactions so it would be included eventually,maybe already, maybe later..) remember transactions dont vanish. they sit in all mempools of all miners. so it eventually tallies

it would require 90%+ for the minority to never have enough hash power to keep up. and by that point the minority should have woken up and moved across.

[1715665037]

1715665037

[1715665037]

1715665037

[1715665037]

1715665037

[1715665037]

1715665037

[1715665037]

1715665037

[trashman43]

at 75% orphans will happen.. it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight.. it will orphan off the larger blocks that dont fit minority rules and rejoin the chains as if the bigger blocks didnt happen.. thats what orphaning is about.

orphaning is part of consensus... 75% is just a trigger, its not enough to form complete consensus and so orphans will still happen. thats why miners will most likely wait until 90%.. even if they have the setting triggered, they would still wait it out to avoid the risk of orphans..

no. you clearly do not understand what orphaned blocks are. the fact that you are comparing an orphaned block to a contentious hard fork is insane. you really should stop acting so condescending, telling people to "learn more" when virtually everything you claim about bitcoin is completely wrong. you clearly do not understand how bitcoin works.

please explain why "larger blocks that dont fit minority rules" would be orphaned off. nodes enforce the longest valid chain -- that's it. they don't go back and reconcile with other nodes that are enforcing different rules. why would they?

once 2MB consensus nodes start accepting bigger blocks onto the longest valid chain, 1MB consensus nodes will ignore them and continue enforcing the 1MB limit. but for 2MB consensus nodes, nothing is invalid...these are valid blocks being built on the longest valid chain, per their rule set. they have no reason to orphan said blocks, and they won't.

orphans (stale blocks) are valid blocks. a 2MB block under 1MB consensus is not a valid block. a 2MB block under 2MB consensus is a valid block. if a miner publishes a 2MB block and there is a network of nodes (Classic) enforcing a 2MB limit, the 1MB consensus chain will ignore the block; it's invalid. the 2MB consensus chain will not; it's valid. that block will fork bitcoin into two networks. this isn't about the risk of orphans. it's about the risk of 2 or more blockchains, permanently.

thats the point.. 75% is not good enough consensus.

as for why 75%..
well even at any time. anyone can change 1000000 to 2000000.. it dont matter.. the 75% is more of a warning to people to get their act together, its a wakeup call that they should not ignore the possibility

"get your act together ASAP or we're going to break bitcoin!" right....

[Lauda]

no. you clearly do not understand what orphaned blocks are. the fact that you are comparing an orphaned block to a contentious hard fork is insane. you really should stop acting so condescending, telling people to "learn more" when virtually everything you claim about bitcoin is completely wrong. you clearly do not understand how bitcoin works.

Let me tell you a piece of friendly advice, put him on your ignore list. He's very stubborn and ignorant. Even though he does not even understand the basic concepts, he thinks that he is always right (which, hilariously, is exactly the opposite of what is happening). It does not matter how many times you explain it to him, he will not admit to being wrong. I've wasted more than enough time on him and I hope that you don't.

The number of coins voting on even the most controversial topic represent around 1% of Bitcoin holdings and at most 60 individuals. Then there is the case that all those big ant block size increase votes are from linked addresses.

It does not matter that much, and that is enough for now. If you want to get even more accurate readings then spread the word and ask people to vote. If not, don't complain.

Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation.

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make 75% any sort of consensus. 75:25 is a network split.

[franky1]

at 75% orphans will happen.. it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight.. it will orphan off the larger blocks that dont fit minority rules and rejoin the chains as if the bigger blocks didnt happen.. thats what orphaning is about.

orphaning is part of consensus... 75% is just a trigger, its not enough to form complete consensus and so orphans will still happen. thats why miners will most likely wait until 90%.. even if they have the setting triggered, they would still wait it out to avoid the risk of orphans..

no. you clearly do not understand what orphaned blocks are. the fact that you are comparing an orphaned block to a contentious hard fork is insane. you really should stop acting so condescending, telling people to "learn more" when virtually everything you claim about bitcoin is completely wrong. you clearly do not understand how bitcoin works.

please explain why "larger blocks that dont fit minority rules" would be orphaned off. nodes enforce the longest valid chain -- that's it. they don't go back and reconcile with other nodes that are enforcing different rules. why would they?

once 2MB consensus nodes start accepting bigger blocks onto the longest valid chain, 1MB consensus nodes will ignore them and continue enforcing the 1MB limit. but for 2MB consensus nodes, nothing is invalid...these are valid blocks being built on the longest valid chain, per their rule set. they have no reason to orphan said blocks, and they won't.

orphans (stale blocks) are valid blocks. a 2MB block under 1MB consensus is not a valid block. if a miner publishes a 2MB block and there is a network of nodes (Classic) enforcing a 2MB limit, the 1MB consensus chain will ignore the block; it's invalid. the 2MB consensus chain will not; it's valid. that block will fork bitcoin into two networks. this isn't about the risk of orphans. it's about the risk of 2 or more blockchains, permanently.

thats the point.. 75% is not good enough consensus.

as for why 75%..
well even at any time. anyone can change 1000000 to 2000000.. it dont matter.. the 75% is more of a warning to people to get their act together, its a wakeup call that they should not ignore the possibility

"get your act together ASAP or we're going to break bitcoin!" right....

lesson 1.
stales are not orphans.
stales are when you give up mid way because someone has found a block before you.
orphans are when there are 2 block solves with the previous block(s) being different. and whoever loses. that previous block is orphaned (loses its confirmations and disapears)

lesson 2.
you are right. small blockers will ignore big blocks, but wont stale their attempt, they would continue and make a small block.

lesson 3.
if the miners with the new rules see a block under 1mb get solved first. it wont reject it. because the rules are 0 to 2000000.. not 1000000 to 2000000. so a 1mb block is still valid even in the new rules.
and because the header data of the 1mb block does not contain any data related to bigger blocks. then the new rule client will say ok 1mb has hit block height by solving first. we need to orphan off the bigger blocks because they dont match the current winning blockheight (small blocker) data chain.

remember small blockers have less data to process so they have a chance of making their own chain of small blocks and getting height to make the big blockers orphan off the big block attempts.

and thats why 75% is not enough to make big blockers feel safe to even make big blocks. because of the risk of orphans.

lesson 4.
the trigger would have been set. a month would have passed. and the maority are aing they want to go with the new rules.. so if the minority dont wake up even with all the warnings, hints, and even triggers and graceperiods to get their act together and move over..
then by sticking thir head in the sand and not upgrading even with 75% trigger active, then they only have their selves to blame for forking.

if everyone woke up and said, oh look 75% of the network is changing, lets change too to avoid issues.. then there would be no problem.
but sticking your head in the sand and shouting to your puppet masters that you will stay below 1mb no matter what, is causing yourself to be a victim

[trashman43]

at 75% orphans will happen.. it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight.. it will orphan off the larger blocks that dont fit minority rules and rejoin the chains as if the bigger blocks didnt happen.. thats what orphaning is about.

orphaning is part of consensus... 75% is just a trigger, its not enough to form complete consensus and so orphans will still happen. thats why miners will most likely wait until 90%.. even if they have the setting triggered, they would still wait it out to avoid the risk of orphans..

no. you clearly do not understand what orphaned blocks are. the fact that you are comparing an orphaned block to a contentious hard fork is insane. you really should stop acting so condescending, telling people to "learn more" when virtually everything you claim about bitcoin is completely wrong. you clearly do not understand how bitcoin works.

please explain why "larger blocks that dont fit minority rules" would be orphaned off. nodes enforce the longest valid chain -- that's it. they don't go back and reconcile with other nodes that are enforcing different rules. why would they?

once 2MB consensus nodes start accepting bigger blocks onto the longest valid chain, 1MB consensus nodes will ignore them and continue enforcing the 1MB limit. but for 2MB consensus nodes, nothing is invalid...these are valid blocks being built on the longest valid chain, per their rule set. they have no reason to orphan said blocks, and they won't.

orphans (stale blocks) are valid blocks. a 2MB block under 1MB consensus is not a valid block. if a miner publishes a 2MB block and there is a network of nodes (Classic) enforcing a 2MB limit, the 1MB consensus chain will ignore the block; it's invalid. the 2MB consensus chain will not; it's valid. that block will fork bitcoin into two networks. this isn't about the risk of orphans. it's about the risk of 2 or more blockchains, permanently.

thats the point.. 75% is not good enough consensus.

as for why 75%..
well even at any time. anyone can change 1000000 to 2000000.. it dont matter.. the 75% is more of a warning to people to get their act together, its a wakeup call that they should not ignore the possibility

"get your act together ASAP or we're going to break bitcoin!" right....

lesson 1.
stales are not orphans.
stales are when you give up mid way because someone has found a block before you.
orphans are when there are 2 block solves with the previous block(s) being different. and whoever loses. that previous block is orphaned (loses its confirmations and disapears)

lesson 2.
you are right. small blockers will ignore big blocks, but wont stale their attempt, they would continue and make a small block.

the only difference between an orphan block and a stale block is whether it has a known parent in the currently-longest block chain. both are rejected by the network.

lesson 3.
if the miners with the new rules see a block under 1mb get solved first. it wont reject it. because the rules are 0 to 2000000.. not 1000000 to 2000000. so a 1mb block is still valid even in the new rules.
and because the header data of the 1mb block does not contain any data related to bigger blocks. then the new rule client will say ok 1mb has hit block height by solving first. we need to orphan off the bigger blocks because they dont match the current winning blockheight (small blocker).

remember small blockers have less data to process so they have a chance of making their own chain of small blocks and getting height to make the big blockers orphan off the big block attempts.

and thats why 75% is not enough to make big blockers feel safe to even make big blocks. because of the risk of orphans.

yes, a 1MB block is valid under the new rules.

but no...where do you get this crazy idea that 1MB and 2MB nodes will reconcile their blockchains? the 2MB consensus nodes would not orphan off the bigger blocks unless they were otherwise invalid. as long as the 2MB blocks are built on the longest valid chain (per 2MB node consensus), they will simply fork off.

it sounds like you are assuming that 1MB miners will always and immediately find multiple blocks before 2MB miners will, forcing a miracle orphaning that prevents a hard fork always and forever. I.E. you think if a 2MB block is mined, that two 1MB blocks will be found, forcing the 2MB block to be orphaned. or if two 2MB blocks are mined, three 1MB blocks will be immediately found. in other words, your plan assumes that 2MB miners are astronomically unlucky and are a very small minority of hashing power. this is a really foolish assumption that you are making.

once the 2MB chain is three blocks ahead (easily achievable on a lucky run with 20-30% of network hashing power), it is extremely unlikely that the 1MB chain could ever be seen again as the longest, valid chain by 2MB nodes. = 2 blockchains with different consensus rules. not orphans....

lesson 4.
the trigger would have been set. a month would have passed. and the maority are aing they want to go with the new rules.. so if the minority dont wake up even with all the warnings, hints, and even triggers and graceperiods to get their act together and move over..
then by sticking thir head in the sand and not upgrading even with 75% trigger active, then they only have their selves to blame for forking.

if everyone woke up and said, oh look 75% of the network is changing, lets change too to avoid issues.. then there would be no problem.
but sticking your head in the sand and shouting to your puppet masters that you will stay below 1mb no matter what, is causing yourself to be a victim

oh, so where did this 75% come from anyway? i see all this bullshit about "grace periods" and "getting their act together" and "sticking your head in the sand" and "puppet masters" but this just sounds like your own irrelevant opinions. pathetic.

[franky1]

it sounds like you are assuming that 1MB miners will always and immediately find multiple blocks before 2MB miners will, forcing a miracle orphaning that prevents a hard fork always and forever. I.E. you think if a 2MB block is mined, that two 1MB blocks will be found, forcing the 2MB block to be orphaned. or if two 2MB blocks are mined, three 1MB blocks will be immediately found. in other words, your plan assumes that 2MB miners are astronomically unlucky and are a very small minority of hashing power. this is a really foolish assumption that you are making.

now you are exaggerating and misunderstanding it...

let me remind you exactly what i said

it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight.. it will cause the new rule miners to orphan off the larger blocks and resync the chains as if the bigger blocks didnt happen.. because they are now following the chain of small blocks.
thats what orphaning is about.

im guessing even when there are very clear signs that things are going to change.. that when the trigger hits and the grace period starts.. even during that 28 day period, you will stick your head in the sand and vow to never change..

admit it. as i feel that you wont change no matter what and your just finding excuses to excuse yourself for not moving with change.

i will be shocked if you reply and say that if there was clear sign of change that you would change too, but i know you wont

[trashman43]

it sounds like you are assuming that 1MB miners will always and immediately find multiple blocks before 2MB miners will, forcing a miracle orphaning that prevents a hard fork always and forever. I.E. you think if a 2MB block is mined, that two 1MB blocks will be found, forcing the 2MB block to be orphaned. or if two 2MB blocks are mined, three 1MB blocks will be immediately found. in other words, your plan assumes that 2MB miners are astronomically unlucky and are a very small minority of hashing power. this is a really foolish assumption that you are making.

now you are exaggerating and misunderstanding it...

let me remind you exactly what i said

it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight.. it will cause the new rule miners to orphan off the larger blocks and resync the chains as if the bigger blocks didnt happen.. because they are now following the chain of small blocks.
thats what orphaning is about.

then i suggest you re-read what you said. because it's painfully obvious, yet again, that you don't understand how bitcoin works.

again, please explain why 2MB consensus nodes would be orphaning 2MB blocks from the longest valid chain. (it may not be the longest valid chain for 1MB consensus nodes, but that is irrelevant to 2MB nodes)

2MB nodes only care if the 1MB chain extends longer than it's forked chain. if it does, the 2MB block(s) get orphaned. for this to happen in perpetuity, as you suggest, 2MB miners must be astronomically unlucky and a very small minority of hashing power. otherwise, once the 2MB chain is three blocks ahead (easily achievable on a lucky run with 20-30% of network hashing power), it is extremely unlikely that the 1MB chain could ever be seen again as the longest, valid chain by 2MB nodes. = 2 blockchains with different consensus rules. not orphans....

im guessing even when there are very clear signs that things are going to change.. that when the trigger hits and the grace period starts.. even during that 28 day period, you will stick your head in the sand and vow to never change..

admit it. as i feel that you wont change no matter what and your just finding excuses to excuse yourself for not moving with change.

i will be shocked if you reply and say that if there was clear sign of change that you would change too, but i know you wont

lol

i'm the one with my head in the sand? you keep losing argument after argument, day after day, looking like a complete fool. and still, you repeat the same old disproven arguments every single day.

i'm all for consensus. if 95% have upgraded (that's pretty close to the definition of consensus but more is better, and it's what bitcoin has used for soft forks in the past that worked out fine) then i might upgrade. depends on whose release it is.

[franky1]

then i suggest you re-read what you said. because it's painfully obvious, yet again, that you don't understand how bitcoin works.

again, please explain why 2MB consensus nodes would be orphaning 2MB blocks from the longest valid chain. (it may not be the longest valid chain for 1MB consensus nodes, but that is irrelevant to 2MB nodes)

longest chain??

hello read it again
it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight..

read the large words..
blockheight = longest chain.

hello do you understand.. when small blockers get longest chain AKA blockheight.. the orpans happen

new rule nodes do not have to be astronomically unlucky, its not like a 0.00001% chance.. its a 25% chance.

and then when you add in factors of small blockers process less data, which increases the chances above 25%. and also the smaller data can be sent around the internet miliseconds faster increases the chances again,

its not astronomically small at all.. it would be maybe 33% chance..

screw it.. lets keep it to 25% chance..
out of 4 blocks.. one of them will be the small blockers gaining blockheight.. and so every 4th block... the 2 chains rejoin and the 3 blocks on the bigblock chain gets orphaned as they are not in the small block chain..

thus voiding off 75btc (3x25btc) income of big blockers.. so that is why they wont push forward at 75%... because there is a 25% risk that they could lose EVERYTHING mined over 1mb..

thus even with the trigger date and grace period passed. miners wont risk pushing the boundaries. and that setting will just sit there as a buffer, ready for when they decide to push forward when the risks are ALOT less than 25%

[trashman43]

then i suggest you re-read what you said. because it's painfully obvious, yet again, that you don't understand how bitcoin works.

again, please explain why 2MB consensus nodes would be orphaning 2MB blocks from the longest valid chain. (it may not be the longest valid chain for 1MB consensus nodes, but that is irrelevant to 2MB nodes)

longest chain??

hello read it again
it may not be the instant a >1mb is created. but after a few confirmations(new blocks) when the minority get its turn for blockheight.

read the large words..
blockheight = longest chain.

hello do you understand.. when small blockers get longest chain AKA blockheight.. the orpans happen

you idiot

how can you guarantee that to 2MB nodes, the 1MB chain will always be the longest chain? you can't.

your whole claim that orphans will prevent a hard fork assumes that 2MB miners could never mine 2 or 3 blocks before 1MB miners. that's ridiculous on its face. we don't even know what relative hashpower would be, but at if 2MB miners have 75% hashpower, your claims are even more ridiculous.

again:

once the 2MB chain is three blocks ahead (easily achievable on a lucky run with 20-30% of network hashing power), it is extremely unlikely that the 1MB chain could ever be seen again as the longest, valid chain by 2MB nodes. = 2 blockchains with different consensus rules. not orphans....

[franky1]

you idiot

how can you guarantee that  to 2MB nodes, the 1MB chain will always be the longest chain? you can't.

guarantee? always?

i never said that.. stop exaggerating to try convincing yourself its ok to stick your head in the sand

and you do realise that making bigger blocks=processing more data. and then sending them out = a bit slower..
which is another reason all in itself to not push forward too soon, as it makes small blockers have more chance of getting a solution first because small blockers have less to process.

which is why i said many posts ago.. smart mining pools wont push forward as soon as the trigger is active. as thats just too risky.

in short.. we know the suggestion is 750 of 1000 for things to start changing..

so thats 7 days of data. if people notice in 2 days that there are atleast 50%-75% of blocks 144-216 of 288 then thats a clear sign even in the first 2 days that there is a chance that things will change.. giving you 5 days to think and/or prepare.. then you have 28days grace period to prepair if that 750-1000 is actually hit..

then after that, when the setting is in place.. its not a nuclear bomb.. as its still risky.. but to accept the fact that if miners are stupid to push foward while it is risky.. there can be orphans..

but with all thats said. if you have stuck your head in the sand. ignored the early signs.. ignored the time the stats hit where it kicks in. doing nothing for the nxt 28 days.. then still crying like a little baby having a tantrum and refusing to move with the change.. then you have yourself to blame

[trashman43]

you idiot

how can you guarantee that  to 2MB nodes, the 1MB chain will always be the longest chain? you can't.

guarantee? always?

i never said that.. stop exaggerating to try convincing yourself its ok to stick your head in the sand

good. so we can agree that your claims that "miners won't take the risk" and that 2MB miners will always have their blocks orphaned until consensus = no risk of contentious hard fork are 100% bullshit.

in other words, everything you've said trying to justify the 75% threshold is bullshit. 2+ blockchains is a real risk that you cannot deny. that's the point.

[franky1]

good. so we can agree that your claims that "miners won't take the risk" and that 2MB miners will always have their blocks orphaned until consensus = no risk of contentious hard fork are 100% bullshit.

in other words, everything you've said trying to justify the 75% threshold is bullshit. 2+ blockchains is a real risk that you cannot deny. that's the point.

what planet are you on.. you have twisted the words so much even you cant comprehend what your trying to say.

enjoy living with your head stuck in the sand..

by the way.. if the change does happen and there was plenty of chances to warn you it was happening.. big neon flashing lights. alerts in your client saying its suggested you upgrade.. would you? i bet you wont.. i bet your glued to 1mb for life even if 99.99% of the community switched.. you wont, because thats the attitude your trying to convey.

and lastly.. orphans are more worrying.. because that causes double spend issues. at 75% im not worried about 2 chains as i know they can rejoin. .. but the orphans caused by the rejoining.. now thats a disaster. good for bitcoin as it keeps the chains aligned eventually.. (as thats the purpose of orphans) but not good for merchants trusting confirms that can be multiple confirms in.. and suddenly not

[johnyj]

Bear in mind that it is this consensus mechanism that is maintaining the the Bitcoin core view of what the validation rules are. Arguing that 75% is needed to change is like saying that only 25% can veto the current situation. Which is patently ridiculous and why the rules were made like thy were.

Q. What's more "hostile" than trying to change blocksize limit?
A. Trying to change the consensus mechanism.

you're saying that a 75% threshold is trying to change the consensus mechanism, right? i believe that's true. with a hard fork, it's especially dangerous, as nodes by and large often don't update their software.

There will be warning in client to urge you to upgrade once more than 51% of nodes are on newer version. If you don't update often, then it means you are not actively use it, so the impact will be minimum. I can't imagine that someone have serious business running on bitcoin nodes without actively watching it

In fact I guess only 100 or less nodes are mission critical nodes, they cover most of the mining pools, exchanges, payment processors and wallet services, rest are just people set and forget leaving running in various university labs/company offices etc

[Lauda]

If you don't update often, then it means you are not actively use it, so the impact will be minimum. I can't imagine that someone have serious business running on bitcoin nodes without actively watching it

Wrong. Are you saying that all Windows XP/7/8 users do not actively use their systems? Don't post nonsense. Some people do not update in short time frames for various reasons. You've just made a faulty generalization.

[johnyj]

If you don't update often, then it means you are not actively use it, so the impact will be minimum. I can't imagine that someone have serious business running on bitcoin nodes without actively watching it

Wrong. Are you saying that all Windows XP/7/8 users do not actively use their systems? Don't post nonsense. Some people do not update in short time frames for various reasons. You've just made a faulty generalization.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Bitcoin is a financial system, if you don't upgrade, you lose money. But windows is a consumption product, if you don't upgrade, you lose nothing

For example, if your bank has just changed to a new type of authentication app and shut down the previous one, majority of people would update it when they receive notice, maximum in one month. Those who don't update means that they are not actively using this bank account, and they will not be able to access their funds later if they don't upgrade

In bitcoin's case, if you are still running the old software where you can not even send bitcoin to exchanges and merchants, you have to upgrade. So once the major service providers like exchanges, merchants and payment processors upgraded, everyone else should upgrade

[Lauda]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Bitcoin is a financial system, if you don't upgrade, you lose money. But windows is a consumption product, if you don't upgrade, you lose nothing

I'm not. I'm comparing software upgrades and the comparison still holds ground from the viewpoint that it was created. You don't lose money if you don't upgrade the Bitcoin software. What are you talking about?

In bitcoin's case, if you are still running the old software where you can not even send bitcoin to exchanges and merchants, you have to upgrade. So once the major service providers like exchanges, merchants and payment processors upgraded, everyone else should upgrade

Again asking for millions of upgrades within 28 days is irresponsible at best.

[hdbuck]

bargainbin is satoshifanclub is notlambchop is all the stupid newbie alt account that shills to fork bitcoin.
pretty sure this dude is a paid troll for all the time he spent on here spreading his statist BS.
first "bitcoin failed", now "we need to fork it", the negative "blabla" never ends.

at this point i'd advice just to ignore the derp.

[hdbuck]

bargainbin is satoshifanclub is notlambchop is all the stupid newbie alt account that shills to fork bitcoin.
pretty sure this dude is a paid troll for all the time he spent on here spreading his statist BS.
first "bitcoin failed", now "we need to fork it", the negative "blabla" never ends.

at this point i'd advice just to ignore the derp.

Must be one hell of a guy if you lot keep looking so fucking dumb whenever he writes something.

yea keep gobbling up that poney rainbow dick.

and



ignored

[LFC_Bitcoin]

bargainbin is satoshifanclub is notlambchop is all the stupid newbie alt account that shills to fork bitcoin.
pretty sure this dude is a paid troll for all the time he spent on here spreading his statist BS.
first "bitcoin failed", now "we need to fork it", the negative "blabla" never ends.

at this point i'd advice just to ignore the derp.

Not sure. I thought NLC existed just to post rubbish & troll. Isn't satoshifanclub quite knowledgable if a little argumentative.

[iCEBREAKER]

Well this just about wraps it up for Classic, and this chapter of the Great Schism saga in general.

Seldom in the history of Bitcoin have so many Gavinistas been so utterly rekt and so completely pwnd.


http://www.riddellwilliams.com/blog/articles/post/hard-fork-conspiracy-treacherous

"If either the Bitcoin Classic or the BitcoinXT plan (or both) goes forward, the creators of the replacement software could face serious legal consequences and potentially criminal liability for their actions. Surprisingly, unlike Satoshi, the mysterious creator of the original Bitcoin software who has remained anonymous and therefore outside the reach of law enforcement, the developers of both Bitcoin Classic and BitcoinXT are publicly named, many of whom reside in the United States.

Requirement for Creators to Register with FinCEN

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury that is charged with combatting domestic and international money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. FinCEN has issued numerous guidance and interpretations of the applicability of regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to persons creating virtual currencies.

Bitcoin Classic and BitcoinXT (meaning in this case the new resulting currency itself rather than the software) would likely be considered by FinCEN to be a new convertible virtual currency. FinCEN has made it clear that a creator of such convertible virtual currency, who issues such currency in order to sell those units for either real currency or its equivalent (including presumably an exchange with current bitcoin), is deemed to be a money transmitter. In the case of BitcoinXT, a website names the specific developers who have final say over the currency. The Bitcoin Classic development team is also publicly named. Under this approach, the creators of Bitcoin Classic or BitcoinXT would need to register with FinCEN as a Money Service Business (“MSB”). Failure to register can result in imprisonment of not more than 5 years, as well as civil penalties. 31 U.S.C. § 5330(e) and 31 C.F.R. § 103.41(e); 18 U.S.C § 1960(b)(1)(B). This is in addition to potential state penalties, as certain states also regulate virtual currency creators.

Requirement to Include AML Protocols in Bitcoin Classic or BitcoinXT

In addition to the registration requirements, an MSB is required to maintain effective anti-money laundering (AML) programs, recordkeeping, and reporting of suspicious activities. In order to do so, the MSB must know who its customers are.

These requirements will require the replacement Bitcoin protocol to maintain the personal identifying information of its users. This can presumably be done through the software code, and is similar to the current information and processes currently maintained by exchangers of bitcoin.

The adherence to such requirements will be a large deviation from the current Bitcoin protocol which does not maintain personally identifiable information about its users. The inclusion of such information would make Bitcoin Classic and BitcoinXT much more accepted by financial institutions, but runs counter to the essence of bitcoin. Bitcoin’s creator designed bitcoin to allow peer-to-peer financial exchange without the use of financial intermediaries and all the complexities involved with such intermediaries, such as identifying the users."