ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[VeritasSapere]

I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.

Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added.

In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.

Agreed, the miners have the final say in what gets added, not Core!

[1715102608]

1715102608

[adamstgBit]

I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.

Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added.

In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.

i hope this actually reflects the reality, one day.

I believe it's half true today, today miners only seem to be able to say what won't get added, they can't pull in features they would like to see ( ex 2MB blocks ) any new feather seem to have been exclusively made by Core in order for it to be considered.

[VeritasSapere]

I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.

Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added.

In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.

I hope this actually reflects the reality, one day.

I believe it's half true today, today miners only seem to be able to say what won't get added, they can't pull in features they would like to see ( ex 2MB blocks )

I think Bitcoin depends on this presumption. The miners absolutely could pull in features like two megabytes blocks, I think they are choosing not to, just to be more diplomatic for now, which is not unwise. I think we will see two megabyte blocks, it is just a matter of time.

[adamstgBit]

I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.

Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added.

In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.

I hope this actually reflects the reality, one day.

I believe it's half true today, today miners only seem to be able to say what won't get added, they can't pull in features they would like to see ( ex 2MB blocks )

I think Bitcoin depends on this presumption. The miners absolutely could pull in features like two megabytes blocks, I think they are choosing not to just to be more diplomatic for now, which is not unwise. I think we will see two megabyte blocks, it is just a matter of time.

it's interesting to see these concepts play out in reality, thats for sure!

[YarkoL]

All of the code is properly accredited.

Where?

In the beginning of every source file.

Code:

// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
// Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers
// Distributed under the MIT software license, see the accompanying
// file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.

Man. You don't git?

[bargainbin]

...
Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added.

In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.

Yup.

[watashi-kokoto]

A bunch of shills on reddit and we're getting endless heated discussions, while Bitcoin operates correctly.

Everyone knew the rules for how long? 5 years? Everyone is aware of the perpetual "stress test" causing the blocks appear full.

Absolutely everyone knows about the Satoshi's 1MB rule, nobody even dared to complain when it was introduced during the initial spam tests.

Now people come here crying about 4 cent fees. Keep settling your pocket changes on exchanges or in Doge, crybabies.

[blunderer]

^^^^                                                             ^^^^

[adamstgBit]

A bunch of shills on reddit and we're getting endless heated discussions, while Bitcoin operates correctly.

Everyone knew the rules for how long? 5 years? Everyone is aware of the perpetual "stress test" causing the blocks appear full.

Absolutely everyone knows about the Satoshi's 1MB rule, nobody even dared to complain when it was introduced during the initial spam tests.

Now people come here crying about 4 cent fees. Keep settling your pocket changes on exchanges or in Doge, crybabies.

Satoshi said it himself he would have the limit bumped when needed, it was a non-issue for him.

Satoshi's vision is similar to Gavin's ( thats where Gavin got it i guess ) bitcoin mining will become more specialized, and thats fine, SPV client etc....

 I'm crying because bitcoin lost 6% market share in 2 months because of all this indecision  

[Lauda]

-snip-
Man. You don't git?

Not really in this case. I've never opened the BU Github page and didn't have a reason to do so. Classic did change the name in a few places (for now). However, it is good to see that they've left it intact.

Satoshi said it himself he would have the limit bumped when needed, it was a non-issue for him.

So we're throwing away 5 years worth of data because he is Satoshi therefore he must be right?

[watashi-kokoto]

Satoshi's vision™

 

As Seen on Reddit™

[adamstgBit]

-snip-
Man. You don't git?

Not really in this case. I've never opened the BU Github page and didn't have a reason to do so. Classic did change the name in a few places (for now). However, it is good to see that they've left it intact.

Satoshi said it himself he would have the limit bumped when needed, it was a non-issue for him.

So we're throwing away 5 years worth of data because he is Satoshi therefore he must be right?

Satoshi understood the implications he didnt pass them off as disastrous, but rather natural evolution

[Lauda]

Satoshi understood the implications he didnt pass them off as disastrous, but rather natural evolution

All I see here is an appeal to authority. He's Satoshi, he invented Bitcoin, ergo he is right. This is not really the right way of doing things.

[adamstgBit]

Satoshi understood the implications he didnt pass them off as disastrous, but rather natural evolution

All I see here is an appeal to authority. He's Satoshi, he invented Bitcoin, ergo he is right. This is not really the right way of doing things.

feel free to replace  'Satoshi' with another respectable and active "bigblocker" we know today.

[VeritasSapere]

Satoshi understood the implications he didnt pass them off as disastrous, but rather natural evolution

All I see here is an appeal to authority. He's Satoshi, he invented Bitcoin, ergo he is right. This is not really the right way of doing things.

It is not even about Satoshi, it is about his vision, which many people still believe in, that is not an appeal to authority. At least not for the people that truly believe in this vision independently. His arguments stand by their own merit, not his authority, do not conflate the two.

[watashi-kokoto]

feel free to replace  'Satoshi' with another respectable and active "bigblocker" we know today.

It is not even about Satoshi, it is about his vision, which many people still believe in, that is not an appeal to authority. At least not for the people that truly believe in this vision independently. His arguments stand by their own merit, not his authority, do not conflate the two.

lol imho satoshi is now in some pub browsing this drama on his phone. Man he must be laughing his ass now.

[sickpig]

core can do the same.
If these features really are pointless and not noteworthy then just ignore it
Its feels like an awful waste to dismiss all code from anyone else simply because they're not your friend.

No. That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that acting this way is disrespectful towards the people who did most of the work. If the code is good and useful somebody will present it to Core. You've quoted an earlier version of my post, I re-wrote it several times.

Maybe Core should just change licence if they don't like this kind fo dynamics.

That's how open source works, as long as a forking project respect forked project's license I see no harm in advertising a new feature developed independently by the former.

About your last point, trying to make your code into Bitcoin, especially a new feature, is extremely tiring and close to impossible if you do not belong to the group of devs that usually contribute to Core.

Just an anecdote: Peter Tschipper, the dev behind BU xthin, a few months ago proposed to include into Core a datastream compression scheme for blocks and txs that could have save 25% in terms of block space and improved network latency by 30%.

He did all the right things, starting from posting a general sketch of his idea to bitcoin-dev ml, refine the design based on feedbacks, tested it in reproducible manner and upon request provide a BIP draft including working implementation.

After a never ending process at the end the feature and its quite significant gaining wasn't merged, nor a BIP number was assigned.

Guess what Peter at the end gave up and contribute his work to other more receptive project.

[notbatman]

core can do the same.
If these features really are pointless and not noteworthy then just ignore it
Its feels like an awful waste to dismiss all code from anyone else simply because they're not your friend.

No. That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that acting this way is disrespectful towards the people who did most of the work. If the code is good and useful somebody will present it to Core. You've quoted an earlier version of my post, I re-wrote it several times.

Maybe Core should just change licence if they don't like this kind fo dynamics.

That's how open source works, as long as a forking project respect forked project's license I see no harm in advertising a new feature developed independently by the former.

About your last point, trying to make your code into Bitcoin, especially a new feature, is extremely tiring and close to impossible if you do not belong to the group of devs that usually contribute to Core.

Just an anecdote: Peter Tschipper, the dev behind BU xthin, a few months ago proposed to include into Core a datastream compression scheme for blocks and txs that could have save 25% in terms of block space and improved network latency by 30%.

He did all the right things, starting from posting a general sketch of his idea to bitcoin-dev ml, refine the design based on feedbacks, tested it in reproducible manner and upon request provide a BIP draft including working implementation.

After a never ending process at the end the feature and its quite significant gaining wasn't merged, nor a BIP number was assigned.

Guess what Peter at the end gave up and contribute his work to other more receptive project.

It's my understanding that various compression schemes have been looked into and rejected, it's most likely that his code didn't break any new ground or worse opened up new DoS vectors. Failing that if it required a hard fork then it would defiantly be something for the back burners.

[steeev]

the spooks seem to be trying to bore us to death with their drivel

only paid shills and/or mental defectives would go on and on like they do

perhaps they consider it respite to come here, rather than thrash around in that sewer full of rabid zombies at r/btc

anyhoo... onward!

[sickpig]

core can do the same.
If these features really are pointless and not noteworthy then just ignore it
Its feels like an awful waste to dismiss all code from anyone else simply because they're not your friend.

No. That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that acting this way is disrespectful towards the people who did most of the work. If the code is good and useful somebody will present it to Core. You've quoted an earlier version of my post, I re-wrote it several times.

Maybe Core should just change licence if they don't like this kind fo dynamics.

That's how open source works, as long as a forking project respect forked project's license I see no harm in advertising a new feature developed independently by the former.

About your last point, trying to make your code into Bitcoin, especially a new feature, is extremely tiring and close to impossible if you do not belong to the group of devs that usually contribute to Core.

Just an anecdote: Peter Tschipper, the dev behind BU xthin, a few months ago proposed to include into Core a datastream compression scheme for blocks and txs that could have save 25% in terms of block space and improved network latency by 30%.

He did all the right things, starting from posting a general sketch of his idea to bitcoin-dev ml, refine the design based on feedbacks, tested it in reproducible manner and upon request provide a BIP draft including working implementation.

After a never ending process at the end the feature and its quite significant gaining wasn't merged, nor a BIP number was assigned.

Guess what Peter at the end gave up and contribute his work to other more receptive project.

It's my understanding that various compression schemes have been looked into and rejected, it's most likely that his code didn't break any new ground or worse opened up new DoS vectors. Failing that if it required a hard fork then it would defiantly be something for the back burners.

no need to guess the reasons why it wasn't merged. it's all in btc-dev ml archives open to anyone who want to check it. nevertheless I can give you a few hints: 25% is not enough, Corallo's relay network is better etc etc,

actually I don't even remember if they explicitly nack it or just avoid to give a final response