ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[steeev]

[iCEBREAKER]

https://medium.com/@bramcohen/double-billing-is-not-healthy-competition-b698c345b11e

Right now there’s a proposal for a hard fork of Bitcoin called ‘Bitcoin Classic’. It’s called that for purely marketing reasons, it would be a new fork, the adjective ‘classic’ is a lie, but for clarity I will continue to refer to it by that name. The technical details of this are a little silly: Classic has a doubling of the block size, but rejects an upcoming proposal which would have the same effect, resulting in it being incompatible with no tangible benefit whatsoever.

Where Classic would be almost not incompatible is that everyone who owns Bitcoins would immediately own both Bitcoins and Classiccoins. This creates massive confusion in transfers: If you want to do a transfer to somebody else, are you supposed to transfer Bitcoins, or Classiccoins, or both? Some counterparties will only accept Bitcoins, either on principle or because they haven’t done the requisite development, some are going to only accept Classiccoins, because they’re partisans, and some will try to be conservative and require transfers of both. Inevitably Bitcoin and Classic will have two completely separate valuations. When stocks split their combined value doesn’t go up. You can’t create value with accounting tricks. The sum dollar value of a Bitcoin and a Classiccoin will be no greater than a Bitcoin was to begin with. That’s assuming that the chaos won’t result in an overall price drop. A plummet seems more likely.

People expecting both Bitcoin and Classiccoin will be viewed by some as attempting to steal, even though they’re merely asking for the full quantity they were expecting before. Bitcoin-only receivers will be underpaid as the senders keep the Classic funds for themselves. Payments sent from Bitcoin-only wallets will have overt stealing as the receivers take the transaction which paid them and add it to Classic, thus claiming funds which aren’t rightfully theirs. The security level of both will be less than Bitcoin was before, because mining resources are split between them. End users will be forced to understand all of this, as the distinction between Bitcoin and Classiccoin has to be explained everywhere: In wallets, on exchanges, and in news articles talking about it.

I don’t know why the CEO of Coinbase is advocating for this insanity. It’s possibly because Coinbase would be well positioned to engage in the sort of chicanery explained above. But it’s equally plausible that he’s just an idiot.

[MeteoImpact]

Hmm, Classic has almost hit XT's all-time high for nodes according to coin dance. Almost. Maybe one day it'll even mine a block.

[franky1]

Hmm, Classic has almost hit XT's all-time high for nodes according to coin dance. Almost. Maybe one day it'll even mine a block.

just remember the bitcoin-core nodes category is filled with all nodes 0.8-0.12 .. so if you actually count just the 0.11.2 and 0.12 as voting for 1mb.. and leave the rest as undecided.. you would get a fairer grasp of the reality

[Blazed]

Nodes are one thing that anyone can easily fire up for numbers. The miners are not going to mine Classic...just let it die already.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Hmm, Classic has almost hit XT's all-time high for nodes according to coin dance. Almost. Maybe one day it'll even mine a block.

just remember the bitcoin-core nodes category is filled with all nodes 0.8-0.12 .. so if you actually count just the 0.11.2 and 0.12 as voting for 1mb.. and leave the rest as undecided.. you would get a fairer grasp of the reality

0.12 hasn't been released yet.

When it does come out it is faaast and smooth, anybody still running crassic would be masochistic to persevere.

[iCEBREAKER]

Dear franky1,

You are not welcome to shitpost in my self-moderated threads.  I warned you not to say "community" again.  You are now in my (very exclusive) killfile, as I no longer GAS about your opinion.

Most people would have figured that out by now, given the numerous repetitive deletions your shitposts.

But since you ride the short bus with Team Classic, I'll give you ample fair notice before escalating the reversion war you've started.

[johnyj]

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

We have only 6000+ full nodes, where does that millions number come from? It is almost guaranteed that if 100 most important nodes upgraded, 99% of the bitcoin users will be fine. In fact if you reduce that number to 20 most important nodes, I think still over 95% of users will not be affected

[madjules007]

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

We have only 6000+ full nodes, where does that millions number come from? It is almost guaranteed that if 100 most important nodes upgraded, 99% of the bitcoin users will be fine. In fact if you reduce that number to 20 most important nodes, I think still over 95% of users will not be affected

What's this gorilla math based on? WTF is an important node?

[Lauda]

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

We have only 6000+ full nodes, where does that millions number come from? It is almost guaranteed that if 100 most important nodes upgraded, 99% of the bitcoin users will be fine. In fact if you reduce that number to 20 most important nodes, I think still over 95% of users will not be affected

1. It is not guaranteed and you are a fool to state such.
2. What is a "important node"?
3. So according to you every merchant and user that doesn't upgrade is irrelevant? 

What's this gorilla math based on? WTF is an important node?

This is what happens when you have to resort to nonsense. They've run out of decent arguments.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bitmain statement regarding "A Call for Consensus"

2016/02/11

"BITMAIN/Antpool chose to abstain from signing the statement, “A Call for Consensus,” that was released yesterday by representatives of several bitcoin companies. The statement was produced as the result of extensive discussions between the Core team and key industry players over the past several weeks.

We applaud the Core team’s increased communication and willingness to find compromise, but we do not wish to bind ourselves to a document that does not contain concrete technical proposals. We look forward to reviewing Bitcoin Core’s updated roadmap and evaluating it on its technical merits, but we do not believe that this should be done to the exclusion of other development efforts.

Like those who signed the Call for Consensus document, we share the common goal of seeing bitcoin succeed. The bitcoin network has proven resilient in the face of many challenges over the years, and we do not believe that testing different implementations of the software poses a threat to the network. If support for a hard fork fails to reach majority consensus, then bitcoin’s built-in voting mechanism works as intended.

Bitcoin has always been free software, and in line with open source philosophy, we encourage and welcome all code proposals irrespective of the team proposing." - Bitmain Technologies, Ltd.

Archived: https://archive.is/HWQUy

[hdbuck]

Bitmain statement regarding "A Call for Consensus"

2016/02/11

"BITMAIN/Antpool chose to abstain from signing the statement, “A Call for Consensus,” that was released yesterday by representatives of several bitcoin companies. The statement was produced as the result of extensive discussions between the Core team and key industry players over the past several weeks.

We applaud the Core team’s increased communication and willingness to find compromise, but we do not wish to bind ourselves to a document that does not contain concrete technical proposals. We look forward to reviewing Bitcoin Core’s updated roadmap and evaluating it on its technical merits, but we do not believe that this should be done to the exclusion of other development efforts.

Like those who signed the Call for Consensus document, we share the common goal of seeing bitcoin succeed. The bitcoin network has proven resilient in the face of many challenges over the years, and we do not believe that testing different implementations of the software poses a threat to the network. If support for a hard fork fails to reach majority consensus, then bitcoin’s built-in voting mechanism works as intended.

Bitcoin has always been free software, and in line with open source philosophy, we encourage and welcome all code proposals irrespective of the team proposing." - Bitmain Technologies, Ltd.

Archived: https://archive.is/HWQUy

in short Core didnt make any technical reasons to get miners to side with the roadmap, and just wanted people to sign it.
lol.. love it when the core team cant even use logic or technical knowledge to add substance. and instead wants signatures on paper, which is the mindset of corporations (who love contracts/agreements)

in short 1MB holding strong.
hardforking bitcoin impossibru.

[brg444]

Yes, stupidity still holding strong the last few weeks, while the altcoin market cap surprisingly doubled.

You mean the pump & dump that lost 20% overnight 

[hdbuck]

Bitmain statement regarding "A Call for Consensus"

2016/02/11

"BITMAIN/Antpool chose to abstain from signing the statement, “A Call for Consensus,” that was released yesterday by representatives of several bitcoin companies. The statement was produced as the result of extensive discussions between the Core team and key industry players over the past several weeks.

We applaud the Core team’s increased communication and willingness to find compromise, but we do not wish to bind ourselves to a document that does not contain concrete technical proposals. We look forward to reviewing Bitcoin Core’s updated roadmap and evaluating it on its technical merits, but we do not believe that this should be done to the exclusion of other development efforts.

Like those who signed the Call for Consensus document, we share the common goal of seeing bitcoin succeed. The bitcoin network has proven resilient in the face of many challenges over the years, and we do not believe that testing different implementations of the software poses a threat to the network. If support for a hard fork fails to reach majority consensus, then bitcoin’s built-in voting mechanism works as intended.

Bitcoin has always been free software, and in line with open source philosophy, we encourage and welcome all code proposals irrespective of the team proposing." - Bitmain Technologies, Ltd.

Archived: https://archive.is/HWQUy

in short Core didnt make any technical reasons to get miners to side with the roadmap, and just wanted people to sign it.
lol.. love it when the core team cant even use logic or technical knowledge to add substance. and instead wants signatures on paper, which is the mindset of corporations (who love contracts/agreements)

in short 1MB holding strong.
hardforking bitcoin impossibru.

Yes, stupidity still holding strong the last few weeks, while the altcoin market cap surprisingly doubled.

yes maybe you should leave bitcoin since you cannot fork it into an altcoin. just buy ethereum

[BitUsher]

Good thing we have better solutions than simply increasing the blocksize. The blocksize limit is already inspiring innovation to increase capacity without costly tradeoffs and we haven't even seen a fee market event occur yet....

Meanwhile ... 21 releases better code using the new CLTV opcode to setup a micro-payments channel to dramatically increase capacity with no need for a blocksize limit increase, and no added network tradoffs. Works with any device and free to use.

https://medium.com/@21/true-micropayments-with-bitcoin-e64fec23ffd8#.t2iij7v71

This will not be as inexpensive and powerful as the lightning network but is a great solution to resolve current capacity "problems" immediately.

[franky1]

yes maybe you should leave bitcoin since you cannot fork it into an altcoin. just buy ethereum

says the blockstream crew who want people to use side chains(100% premined altcoins)..

[franky1]

Good thing we have better solutions than simply increasing the blocksize. The blocksize limit is already inspiring innovation to increase capacity without costly tradeoffs and we haven't even seen a fee market event occur yet....

have you actually looked at the data..

signatures =70bytes

changing the flags and other stuff add bytes.. changing the OP_return from 40 to 80 bytes to allow confidential payments.. adds bytes..
thats just 2 examples of the multitude of things that are going to add bytes to the main block.

so dont expect larger capacity for long.. by the time people have seen segwit running for a few months to trust it has no bugs. and then update their clients.. the new features would have bloated up any saving the signatures would have made.

segwit is not a capacity increase. its a diversion of data to allow for more features..

[BitUsher]

Good thing we have better solutions than simply increasing the blocksize. The blocksize limit is already inspiring innovation to increase capacity without costly tradeoffs and we haven't even seen a fee market event occur yet....

have you actually looked at the data..

signatures =70bytes

changing the flags and other stuff add bytes.. changing the OP_return from 40 to 80 bytes to allow confidential payments.. adds bytes..
thats just 2 examples of the multitude of things that are going to add bytes to the main block.

so dont expect larger capacity for long.. by the time people have seen segwit running for a few months to trust it has no bugs. and then update their clients.. the new features would have bloated up any saving the signatures would have made.

segwit is not a capacity increase. its a diversion of data to allow for more features..

Wow , completely off topic, and unrelated to my post. Segwit and CT has absolutely nothing to do with the new micropayment channel I am discussing that dramatically increases capacity. I am seriously concerned for your mental state.

[franky1]

Wow , completely off topic, and unrelated to my post. Segwit and CT has absolutely nothing to do with the new micropayment channel I am discussing that dramatically increases capacity. I am seriously concerned for your mental state.

well this topic is for the core fanboys.. to advertise their love for core and their hate for anything not core..
so your "we" i assumed and thought was the royal 'we' of core fanboy trying to promote cores roadmap.
im guessing your talking about some other altcoin that is not bitcoin.

if its related to bitcoin.. meaning your payment channel is LN.. then that also adds bytes to a tx..
if your talking about an altcoin. then i am sorry to confuse you with the core fanboys

[BitUsher]

Wow , completely off topic, and unrelated to my post. Segwit and CT has absolutely nothing to do with the new micropayment channel I am discussing that dramatically increases capacity. I am seriously concerned for your mental state.

well this topic is for the core fanboys.. so your "we" i thought was the royal we trying to promote cores roadmap.
im guessing your talking about some other altcoin that is not bitcoin.

if its related to bitcoin.. meaning your payment channel is LN.. then that also adds bytes to a tx..
if your talking about an altcoin. then i am sorry to confuse you with the core fanboys

Again my post has nothing to do with the core scalability map, altcoins or the Lightning network. Even after being corrected you seem impervious to reading and taking in new information regardless of that new information being a solution that is available now which directly addresses the capacity you so demand. Instead of reading the link and understanding the information, and using the code to increase your capacity when using the bitcoin network you assume that there is no other innovation that is possible outside of increasing the blocksize. You are plugging your ears, making assumptions, and repeating offtopic comments.... It is rather quite sad.

Here are some other solutions that existed prior which you probably won't acknowledge or read-


https://bitcore.io/api/channel/
https://bitcoinj.github.io/working-with-micropayments
https://github.com/streamium/streamium
https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#micropayment-channel

The Payment channel I was referring to was a slight improvement on the above. Bitcoin Payment channels do not use altcoins if you haven't figured that out yet.