ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

iCEBREAKER, surely there is better fodder for the classic r3kt party?

When people make fun of petty crap like that it gives the impression that there is nothing substantive to say.

I think it's best the weird personal attacks to others: As the Irish proverb says, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it."

The classic r3kt party is winding down, so we're left scraping the bottom of the barrel for new material (ie, something else substantive to say).

The great thing about shrinknut's zinger was its context and phrasing, not the admittedly petty content.

Instead of flashy rhetoric you should concentrate on the fact that competing implementations is healthy; but the ones that threaten to break protocol are dangerous. That's what sold me.

[iCEBREAKER]

Instead of flashy rhetoric you should concentrate on the fact that competing implementations is healthy; but the ones that threaten to break protocol are dangerous. That's what sold me.

Competing implementations of Bitcoin, such as Litecoin and Primecoin, are called altcoins because they establish their own independent alternative socioeconomic consensuses/majorities.

Hostile implementations of Bitcoin, such as XT and Classic, are declarations of war because they attempt to threaten Bitcoin's existing consensus-critical distributed ledger.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Instead of flashy rhetoric you should concentrate on the fact that competing implementations is healthy; but the ones that threaten to break protocol are dangerous. That's what sold me.

Competing implementations of Bitcoin, such as Litecoin and Primecoin, are called altcoins because they establish their own independent alternative socioeconomic consensuses/majorities.

Hostile implementations of Bitcoin, such as XT and Classic, are declarations of war because they attempt to threaten Bitcoin's existing consensus-critical distributed ledger.

But there are other implementations, like libbitcoin I believe, that aren't altcoins, and are net positives for the Bitcoin ecosystem. Isn't that right?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Instead of flashy rhetoric you should concentrate on the fact that competing implementations is healthy; but the ones that threaten to break protocol are dangerous. That's what sold me.

Competing implementations of Bitcoin, such as Litecoin and Primecoin, are called altcoins because they establish their own independent alternative socioeconomic consensuses/majorities.

Hostile implementations of Bitcoin, such as XT and Classic, are declarations of war because they attempt to threaten Bitcoin's existing consensus-critical distributed ledger.

But there are other implementations, like libbitcoin I believe, that aren't altcoins, and are net positives for the Bitcoin ecosystem. Isn't that right?

Correct. And btcd. And they are net positive.

[iCEBREAKER]

Instead of flashy rhetoric you should concentrate on the fact that competing implementations is healthy; but the ones that threaten to break protocol are dangerous. That's what sold me.

Competing implementations of Bitcoin, such as Litecoin and Primecoin, are called altcoins because they establish their own independent alternative socioeconomic consensuses/majorities.

Hostile implementations of Bitcoin, such as XT and Classic, are declarations of war because they attempt to threaten Bitcoin's existing consensus-critical distributed ledger.

But there are other implementations, like libbitcoin I believe, that aren't altcoins, and are net positives for the Bitcoin ecosystem. Isn't that right?

It gets confusing and idiomatic (esp for non-native speakers) if we have to distinguish between the friendly positive-sum competition of btcd vs the cutthroat zero-sum competition of GavinCoin.

I'd classify other implementations like libbitcoin and bctd as complementary, not competing, in that they all share the same goal of maintaining the One True Holy Ledger.

But let's defer to the core dev, if gmax has a better suggestion for the taxonomy/nomenclature.

[gmaxwell]

I'd classify other implementations like libbitcoin and bctd as complementary, not competing, in that they all share the same goal of maintaining the One True Holy Ledger.

But let's defer to the core dev, if gmax has a better suggestion for the taxonomy/nomenclature.

Open source software generally both cooperates and competes. Handled well the benefits of the former offset the costs of the latter and the result is a gain for everyone. --- but software differentiating in consensus rules is the worst kind of competition: competition here can deprive users of the practical freedom to use their preferred software, and the fight risks leaving a salted earth in its wake.

This is not completely unheard of outside of consensus systems: A less powerful version of it exists in the form of file format compatibility. Microsoft was a pioneer of business strategy based on making incompatible extensions to formats, first leveraging their network effect and then-- after introducing incompatible changes-- using it against them, an approach they themselves called embrace, extend, extinguish. Worse than zero sum, these kinds of moves can be tremendously damaging overall.

Bitcoin's creator described alternative implementations as a likely "menace to the network"-- words which I think were spoken with an early insight into the incredible difficulty in making distinct software actually consensus compatible even when that is your highest goal, an art our industry is still just learning.  I wish we'd built mechanisms earlier on for better ways to enable diversity in the non-consensus parts without ending up with unintended diversity in the consensus parts.  But we play the hand we're dealt. The potential harms from consensus disagreements from mistakes in re-implementation are tiny in comparison to those from adversarial implementations which intentionally push incompatible rules.

[watashi-kokoto]

....
Hostile implementations of Bitcoin, such as XT and Classic, are declarations of war
...

Let me share with you some proven strategies on hostile boards.

Miner want kill Bitcoin. Bitcoin is died please beleive me. We together very afraid.
ETHERIUM IS ONLY CHANCE FOR SAVE THE YOUR FUNDS.

The above post send via mail to non-shill (not-upvoted) users. It exposes the shill narrative `PROBLEM-FEAR-SOLUTION` and makes fun of the perfect grammar of the shills.

[iCEBREAKER]

Open source software generally both cooperates and competes. Handled well the benefits of the former offset the costs of the latter and the result is a gain for everyone. --- but software differentiating in consensus rules is the worst kind of competition: competition here can deprive users of the practical freedom to use their preferred software, and the fight risks leaving a salted earth in its wake.

So in the social UX layer, it's the ever-looming potential loss of "practical freedom to use their preferred software" that puts the criteria in 'consensus-critical.'  If the data layer is borked by some catastrophe, the nodes are mostly useless for their users.

Not being a hippie an altruist, I'd reverse or at least equate the assumptions w/r/t linking the benefits of cooperation and costs of competition.  Dodo Island Effect, don't you know.

Then I'd invert the frame, asking if it is possible to compete at being the most cooperative ('frenemies')!  

Microsoft was a pioneer of business strategy based on making incompatible extensions to formats, first leveraging their network effect and then-- after introducing incompatible changes-- using it against them, an approach they themselves called embrace, extend, extinguish. Worse than zero sum, these kinds of moves can be tremendously damaging overall.

Bitcoin's creator described alternative implementations as a likely "menace to the network"-- words which I think were spoken with an early insight into the incredible difficulty in making distinct software actually consensus compatible even when that is your highest goal, an art our industry is still just learning.  I wish we'd built mechanisms earlier on for better ways to enable diversity in the non-consensus parts without ending up with unintended diversity in the consensus parts.  But we play the hand we're dealt. The potential harms from consensus disagreements from mistakes in re-implementation are tiny in comparison to those from adversarial implementations which intentionally push incompatible rules.

Very profound.  Great catch on pointing out I'd mistakenly referred to as "zero-sum" contentious hard forks' negative-sum game theoretics.

It's important to emphasize a Pyrrhic GavinCoin victory doesn't involve a smooth transfer of power from Evil Core to Heroic Classic.

There are Samson Options on the table.  Many Gavinistas actually want a moment of maximal risk, either because they don't own many Bitcoins or like the narrative appeal of a TV Trope style Cathartic Scream.

If hard-forkers insist on a first strike in the form of a "75/25" split, the rest of the network may respond with their Doomsday Machine, aka PoW change.

The sum productivity of such a situation quickly drops from zero to extremely negative.  Perhaps that's just creative destruction at work.

But the recriminations will surely flow, as the Gavinistas survey the decimated Bitcoin ecosystem and exclaim "Look what you made me do!"

[davedx]

What's this about the "R3KT party winding down"? Surely you guys should be dancing on the grave of Bitcoin Classic now it's well and truly history, right?

https://coin.dance/nodes/blocks

I mean, why is this thread still active if Classic is "R3KT"?

[Lauda]

https://coin.dance/nodes/blocks

How many times does one have to tell you that the number of nodes is not a good metric, especially not when taken in a very short period of time? Either you are unable to comprehend this, or are refusing to. One can easily jump-start a high number of nodes in a short period of time.

[davedx]

https://coin.dance/nodes/blocks

How many times does one have to tell you that the number of nodes is not a good metric, especially not when taken in a very short period of time? Either you are unable to comprehend this, or are refusing to. One can easily jump-start a high number of nodes in a short period of time.

It's the number of blocks mined, you fucking idiot. Learn to read.

[Lauda]

It's the number of blocks mined, you fucking idiot. Learn to read.

If that was the sole focus you would link to a proper website, not this joke of a "counter" (which is very biased). A single pool can't do anything, you are free to fork off with KNCMiner. Here comes the ad hominem, very 'classic'.
This is the real link (from that website) for the block statistic.

[watashi-kokoto]

It's the number of blocks mined, you fucking idiot. Learn to read.

Your shitty classic blocks are completely pointless. Joke's on you idiot.

[davedx]

It's the number of blocks mined, you fucking idiot. Learn to read.

If that was the sole focus you would link to a proper website, not this joke of a "counter" (which is very biased). A single pool can't do anything, you are free to fork off with KNCMiner. Here comes the ad hominem, very 'classic'.

The Bitcoin core groupies started with the ad hominems in this thread, not me. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

More than one pool is mining Classic. But wait, this "REKT" party is over, right? Classic is dead!

[watashi-kokoto]

The Bitcoin core groupies started with the ad hominems in this thread, not me. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
More than one pool is mining Classic. But wait, this "REKT" party is over, right? Classic is dead!

Yes, Classic is dead. 0 team members, Gavin jerking off instead of coding, Ethereum is the next Classic, deal with it nigger;

[Lauda]

The Bitcoin core groupies started with the ad hominems in this thread, not me. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

This definitely did not begin with this thread. It started back with XT.

More than one pool is mining Classic.

Nobody cares. You're free to fork off right now. ~5% hashrate is also a form of consensus right?  

But wait, this "REKT" party is over, right? Classic is dead!

If you only had real developers that were actually coding instead of wasting everyone's time and causing confusing, it might have been a viable option.

[steeev]

just upgraded to 0.12.0

[YarkoL]

just upgraded to 0.12.0

Unlimited or Core?

[iCEBREAKER]

In the latest news from Jerusalem...

Tensions between Team Unlimited and Classic's Censorship Martyr Brigade are running high.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47mj3i/announcing_bitcoinunlimited_v0120_experimental/d0e74s6

P> Announcing BitcoinUnlimited v0.12.0

Q> This is a bad idea.   All you're doing is stirring the pot and giving ammunition to those who would paint us all as idiots and trolls.

[adamstgBit]

P> Announcing BitcoinUnlimited v0.12.0

Xtreme Thinblocks
BUIP010 Reduces real-time block propagation sizes by an average of 15x (i.e. 1MB down to 70KB) returning the network overhead for newly mined blocks to the state it was in June 2012
​
Xpress Validation
BUIP010 Superfast block validation leverages the earlier validation of transactions which are in the mempool so that only previously unseen transactions in a block need full validation.
​
Traffic-shaping
BUIP001 Users can easily configure how much bandwidth should be used for Bitcoin, allowing the BU client to run unobtrusively in a home network.

this seems like good stuff, what's your take on it iCEBREAKER?

does Core have or plan to have this?