ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I guess it makes sense to support Core if you don't understand how Bitcoin works.

I saw the twins in an interview and they are really amazing , one of the elite of bitcoin, but very good people.

They seem to support core and they have intelligently explained why = DECENTRALIZATION.

Unfortunately classic shills cant understand that a 100 petabyte blockchain will not make bitcoin decentralized.

That's so boring.

Nobody outside small blockers mind is talking about a 100 petabyte blockchain.

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

But that doesn't matter. Nobody is talking aboutz 100 petabyte blocks. End of the story.

[watashi-kokoto]

They are only now started to planning the actual hard fork.

[alani123]

I guess it makes sense to support Core if you don't understand how Bitcoin works.

I saw the twins in an interview and they are really amazing , one of the elite of bitcoin, but very good people.

They seem to support core and they have intelligently explained why = DECENTRALIZATION.

Unfortunately classic shills cant understand that a 100 petabyte blockchain will not make bitcoin decentralized.

That's so boring.

Nobody outside small blockers mind is talking about a 100 petabyte blockchain.

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

But that doesn't matter. Nobody is talking aboutz 100 petabyte blocks. End of the story.

Like it or not, even when bitcoin's price was at peak actual use of the currency was mostly from underground markets and various unregulated financial activities. Increasing the block size brings a burden to those hosting nodes and doesn't change bitcoin's potential for real world use. Bitcoin as it stands today is bad for purchasing goods, too slow to walk in a bricks and mortar store expecting to use it to securely purchase. something. The changes that would need to be made for those issues to be addressed haven't been thought out yet but increasing the block size doesn't fix any of them. It's likely that a layer using bitcoin as a settlement layer would be more efficient at providing competitive Financial transaction services rather than attempting to fork bitcoin itself. The latter would likely even turn away some of the current users and having the network shrink can only weaken bitcoin.

[hdbuck]

afaik they are real AWS free trial nodes.

51% of Bitcoin Classic Nodes Hosted on AWS
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/499bai/51_of_bitcoin_classic_nodes_hosted_on_aws/

https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Amazon.com,%20Inc.


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44syq6/start_a_classic_node_in_aws_in_under_20_minutes/

Wow, that's just... wow. Look how big our node numbers are; that must mean we're legit!

Meanwhile, Core nodes stay around the same numbers as they've been at since pretty much no one who ran a node before this ruckus is actually switching over...

in fact even core nodes witnessed a tight rise.

so many versions now, gotta love decentralization.

good luck forking that...

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I guess it makes sense to support Core if you don't understand how Bitcoin works.

I saw the twins in an interview and they are really amazing , one of the elite of bitcoin, but very good people.

They seem to support core and they have intelligently explained why = DECENTRALIZATION.

Unfortunately classic shills cant understand that a 100 petabyte blockchain will not make bitcoin decentralized.

That's so boring.

Nobody outside small blockers mind is talking about a 100 petabyte blockchain.

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

But that doesn't matter. Nobody is talking aboutz 100 petabyte blocks. End of the story.

Like it or not, even when bitcoin's price was at peak actual use of the currency was mostly from underground markets and various unregulated financial activities. Increasing the block size brings a burden to those hosting nodes and doesn't change bitcoin's potential for real world use. Bitcoin as it stands today is bad for purchasing goods, too slow to walk in a bricks and mortar store expecting to use it to securely purchase. something. The changes that would need to be made for those issues to be addressed haven't been thought out yet but increasing the block size doesn't fix any of them. It's likely that a layer using bitcoin as a settlement layer would be more efficient at providing competitive Financial transaction services rather than attempting to fork bitcoin itself. The latter would likely even turn away some of the current users and having the network shrink can only weaken bitcoin.

And this is boooring, too.*

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.


*
I. Actually, Bitcoin is used for many more things than underground markets. Some examples are the international buying of goods, when credit cards don't work, capital flight from restricted areas, paying of international freelancers, gambling, investing and many more things.
II. increasing the blocksize might be a burden for a small percentage of nodes but it will not damage the system as a whole.
III. Bitcoin is not bad for purchasing goods online. It works very well for it. It's also not bad for buying in a shop, because there are mechanism to detect if a transaction might be confirmed or not. It works well.
IV. Bitcoin works quiet well for a whole number of usecases.
V. not a hard fork turns users away but the absence of a hardfork when it is necessary.
VI. restricting bitcoins ability as a payment system damages on of the main usecases of bitcoin: as a token that is used to speculate on the worth it will have when used as a widespread mean of payment.

[Pkzone]

Hearn's Avengers don't want to develop their own coin anymore than the XT and Unlimited hosers did.

They want to hijack Core, repurpose its roadmap to suit Coinbase's business markitecture requirements, and still expect Core's devs to keep working.

Adam Back is wrecking _Classic on twitter.  His best point so far is that _Classic is self-defeating, in that if its tyranny of the majority succeeds in taking out Core it necessarily takes Bitcoin's (experiment in) antifragility with it.

Then there is the fact _Classic is saying such stupid things it makes the small block militia's job easy....

Henry Brade ‏@Technom4ge
@Koopake @adam3us @virtuallylaw @morcosa The update in Classic is extremely simple and safe, not much testing needed.

"Not much testing needed" is an instant comedy classic.  Memes in 3, 2, 1....

Henry Brade ‏@Technom4ge 4h4 hours ago
@adam3us I'm willing to risk it all purely on principle and the faith that there will be developers even if there aren't many now.

Principle and Faith^® will save _Classic from Evil Core!  You read it here first!


This new generation of TumorBlocker lowcows is even more unintentionally hilarious than our beloved old herd of XT and Unlimited Gavinistas.

I guess we have to thank Hearn's timely, high-profile martyrdom for agitating the Tooministas into such an incoherent froth.  

Agreed highly.

I guess it makes sense to support Core if you don't understand how Bitcoin works.

I saw the twins in an interview and they are really amazing , one of the elite of bitcoin, but very good people.

They seem to support core and they have intelligently explained why = DECENTRALIZATION.

Unfortunately classic shills cant understand that a 100 petabyte blockchain will not make bitcoin decentralized.

That's so boring.

Nobody outside small blockers mind is talking about a 100 petabyte blockchain.

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

But that doesn't matter. Nobody is talking aboutz 100 petabyte blocks. End of the story.

Like it or not, even when bitcoin's price was at peak actual use of the currency was mostly from underground markets and various unregulated financial activities. Increasing the block size brings a burden to those hosting nodes and doesn't change bitcoin's potential for real world use. Bitcoin as it stands today is bad for purchasing goods, too slow to walk in a bricks and mortar store expecting to use it to securely purchase. something. The changes that would need to be made for those issues to be addressed haven't been thought out yet but increasing the block size doesn't fix any of them. It's likely that a layer using bitcoin as a settlement layer would be more efficient at providing competitive Financial transaction services rather than attempting to fork bitcoin itself. The latter would likely even turn away some of the current users and having the network shrink can only weaken bitcoin.

And this is boooring, too.*

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.


*
I. Actually, Bitcoin is used for many more things than underground markets. Some examples are the international buying of goods, when credit cards don't work, capital flight from restricted areas, paying of international freelancers, gambling, investing and many more things.
II. increasing the blocksize might be a burden for a small percentage of nodes but it will not damage the system as a whole.
III. Bitcoin is not bad for purchasing goods online. It works very well for it. It's also not bad for buying in a shop, because there are mechanism to detect if a transaction might be confirmed or not. It works well.
IV. Bitcoin works quiet well for a whole number of usecases.
V. not a hard fork turns users away but the absence of a hardfork when it is necessary.
VI. restricting bitcoins ability as a payment system damages on of the main usecases of bitcoin: as a token that is used to speculate on the worth it will have when used as a widespread mean of payment.

Do you mean that we SHOULD promote the hardfork?

If Bitcoin gets really decentralized they cannot combat criminal activity anyway (unless they push some malicious code) (for example, FBI pushed malicious JS in Tor websites somehow)

[pereira4]

Classics shills grasping at straws. After they see no one is supporting their nodes and no one with money invested in actual Bitcoin and not their business (like the Winklevoss which actually own a lot of Bitcoin and aren't just making USD of a Bitcoin business) are supporting the best (Core) devs.

[alani123]

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.

Fun fact, nobody is controlling this even now. The demand for bitcoin use hasn't to this day surpassed the limit of transactions that can be processed by bitcoin's network (aside of stress tests of course). But the sad truth is that bitcoin can't scale. No matter how bigger the network gets, this limit to transactions will always be there, for a robust, scalable technologies to be based on bitcoin though, the network's size would need to remain stable in order for them to be able to count on it. Increasing the block size destroys the potential for such technologies to be based on bitcoin as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing. This kind of centralization brings interest away from bitcoin.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Classics shills grasping at straws. After they see no one is supporting their nodes and no one with money invested in actual Bitcoin and not their business (like the Winklevoss which actually own a lot of Bitcoin and aren't just making USD of a Bitcoin business) are supporting the best (Core) devs.

Again, boring.

But, this time: true. Camp classic is actually very frustrated, because everybody eats the idea that bigger blocks === centralization (which could not be proofed untill today (i)) while noone seems to see the damage of smaller blocks (that is: a stopp of the growth (ii), a damage of privacy (iii), an exclusion of those who might need bicoin (iv) and the eating of bitcoins lunch by another coin (v)) -- in short: smaller blocks are a urgent and real risk of transaction centralization while bigger blocks are a hypothetical risk of a node centralization somewhen in the future.

Appendix:

i. neither bandwidth nor storage could been proofen as a problem. A proof that this is all more like a distraction can be found in the apathy / rejection of thin blocks by core. (thinblocks are developed and can NOW solve any bandwith issue with bigger blocks)
ii. we reached peak blockspace. If you find bitcoin's (legal) killer app today, it would be not worth a note, because we don't have the space to use it.
iii. privacy requires a) a chain of transactions (coinjoin) and b) the no size-effective use of adresses for transactions. If you have any basic knowledge about bitcoin you should understand b)
iv. it was claimed so often that people of the third world need bitcoin. With raising fees they can't.
v. ethereum is the new magnet for investments.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.

Fun fact, nobody is controlling this even now. The demand for bitcoin use hasn't to this day surpassed the limit of transactions that can be processed by bitcoin's network (aside of stress tests of course). But the sad truth is that bitcoin can't scale. No matter how bigger the network gets, this limit to transactions will always be there, for a robust, scalable technologies to be based on bitcoin though, the network's size would need to remain stable in order for them to be able to count on it. Increasing the block size destroys the potential for such technologies to be based on bitcoin as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing. This kind of centralization brings interest away from bitcoin.

The amount of illogic sold as logic scales very well in this place.

But the sad truth is that bitcoin can't scale. No matter how bigger the network gets ...

You realize how stupid this sentence is? Bitcoin can scale. We just need to raise to blocksize to, let's say, 4 mb, and bitcoin quadrupled it's transaction capacity. That proofs it can scale.

What you mean is: Bitcoin can't scale "to infinity". That may be true to some degree but everything but important if you have other interests than thworing big red herrings around. As I said above:

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

Ah, and about this

for a robust, scalable technologies to be based on bitcoin though, the network's size would need to remain stable in order for them to be able to count on it. Increasing the block size destroys the potential for such technologies to be based on bitcoin as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing. This kind of centralization brings interest away from bitcoin.

That's a chain of bs based on the flawed assumption that every blocksize-increase is an increase of centralization - and even if this is assumed true it remains a chain of bs without any proof.

But remarkable is this

as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing

That's a proof of brainwashing. Neither is there a guarantee that a capacity increase will decrease the number of participants significantly, nor that there will be a transaction processing centralization. The opposite - if we drive transactions offchain we will see a transaction processing centralization, be it really offchain (payment providers) or with lightning or sidechains. Only onchain transactions are decentralized. That you attack those who wants to keep bitcoin transaction processing decentralized as agents of centralization shows how deeply you made double speak your mother language while not even knowing it.

[hdbuck]

Classics shills grasping at straws. After they see no one is supporting their nodes and no one with money invested in actual Bitcoin and not their business (like the Winklevoss which actually own a lot of Bitcoin and aren't just making USD of a Bitcoin business) are supporting the best (Core) devs.

Again, boring.

But, this time: true. Camp classic is actually very frustrated, because everybody eats the idea that bigger blocks === centralization (which could not be proofed untill today (i)) while noone seems to see the damage of smaller blocks (that is: a stopp of the growth (ii), a damage of privacy (iii), an exclusion of those who might need bicoin (iv) and the eating of bitcoins lunch by another coin (v)) -- in short: smaller blocks are a urgent and real risk of transaction centralization while bigger blocks are a hypothetical risk of a node centralization somewhen in the future.

Appendix:

i. neither bandwidth nor storage could been proofen as a problem. A proof that this is all more like a distraction can be found in the apathy / rejection of thin blocks by core. (thinblocks are developed and can NOW solve any bandwith issue with bigger blocks)
ii. we reached peak blockspace. If you find bitcoin's (legal) killer app today, it would be not worth a note, because we don't have the space to use it.
iii. privacy requires a) a chain of transactions (coinjoin) and b) the no size-effective use of adresses for transactions. If you have any basic knowledge about bitcoin you should understand b)
iv. it was claimed so often that people of the third world need bitcoin. With raising fees they can't.
v. ethereum is the new magnet for investments.

get lost in ether vapors already.

[RealBitcoin]

That's so boring.

Nobody outside small blockers mind is talking about a 100 petabyte blockchain.

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

But that doesn't matter. Nobody is talking aboutz 100 petabyte blocks. End of the story.

I`m not talking about block size but the size of the entire blockchain.

It's already 60 GB, and its growing. If you wanna raise the block size to 8-16 mb later, it will grow rapidly.


You are talking about small people not having room for transaction. But nodes not having HDD room for blockchain that is ok no?

Well it isnt, the blockchain must stay as small as possible, because otherwise it will grow faster than MOORES LAW or other pseudoscience, and you will quickly find out that only datacenters could host bitcoin in the future.

[hdbuck]

That's so boring.

Nobody outside small blockers mind is talking about a 100 petabyte blockchain.

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

But that doesn't matter. Nobody is talking aboutz 100 petabyte blocks. End of the story.

I`m not talking about block size but the size of the entire blockchain.

It's already 60 GB, and its growing. If you wanna raise the block size to 8-16 mb later, it will grow rapidly.


You are talking about small people not having room for transaction. But nodes not having HDD room for blockchain that is ok no?

Well it isnt, the blockchain must stay as small as possible, because otherwise it will grow faster than MOORES LAW or other pseudoscience, and you will quickly find out that only datacenters could host bitcoin in the future.

moore's law is dead.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

You are talking about small people not having room for transaction. But nodes not having HDD room for blockchain that is ok no?

What's worse?

Small people can't host bitcoin - or small people can't use bitcoin?

Do you dream of a world where every poor man can proudly spend his hdd to host a payment network only the rich can use?

Logic is a finite ressource, and not every brain is a host of knowledge. Think for yourself!

Edit: answering this, too

and you will quickly find out that only datacenters could host bitcoin in the future.

Please, apply some logic. If we let blocks grow, it doesn't mean they will grow to a size only a datacentre can host. Two posts earlier you told me that there is not enough demand to even fill 1mb blocks. So - why do you fear bigger blocks if there is no demand for them?

I say this the third time: If we ever get so many transactions that you need datacenters to host the blockchain, even solutions like lightning or sidechains will need datacentres; and they will maybe have more potencial to restrict transactions than datacentre-nodes (who will simply be the executor of clientside-signed transactions).

Both ways lead to datacentres in the long run. But while the small block ways introduces centralization in the payment earlier than it needs to be, the big block way keeps the payment processing decentralized as long as it is possible.

It's an irony that you with the name RealBitcoin promote the centralization of bitcoin payments with something that was never part of bitcoin by accusing those who wants to keep payment decentral to be promoters of centralization.

Think for your own and stop following authorities!

Edit Edit: Answering this too

It's already 60 GB, and its growing. If you wanna raise the block size to 8-16 mb later, it will grow rapidly.

Keeping the blockchain is no problem, at least with pruning.

Downloading is a problem and a sector where we need to find solutions, independently if we raise the blocksize or not. It needs way too much time to start a node.

[Denker]

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.

Fun fact, nobody is controlling this even now. The demand for bitcoin use hasn't to this day surpassed the limit of transactions that can be processed by bitcoin's network (aside of stress tests of course). But the sad truth is that bitcoin can't scale. No matter how bigger the network gets, this limit to transactions will always be there, for a robust, scalable technologies to be based on bitcoin though, the network's size would need to remain stable in order for them to be able to count on it. Increasing the block size destroys the potential for such technologies to be based on bitcoin as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing. This kind of centralization brings interest away from bitcoin.

True words.
This reminds much of a story Trace Mayer once told. He was having dinner with Gregory Maxwell, Adam Back and Gavin Andresen.
During this dinner Trace asked the threee why they would hire Bitcoin.
Maxwell and Back said moneytary sovereignty.For that decentralisation is the most valuable good we have and are not allowed to lose.
Andresen however answered when he makes a payment he feels good.

[iCEBREAKER]

I guess it makes sense to support Core if you don't understand how Bitcoin works.

I saw the twins in an interview and they are really amazing , one of the elite of bitcoin, but very good people.

They seem to support core and they have intelligently explained why = DECENTRALIZATION.

Unfortunately classic shills cant understand that a 100 petabyte blockchain will not make bitcoin decentralized.

The Winkelvii definitely grok the ethos.  Everyone should use Gemini or Kraken instead of Coinbase and Circle.

Supporting CoinbaseCoin only makes sense if you don't understand (or fear/resent) how the property of antifragility emerges from Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network.

[iCEBREAKER]

You are talking about small people not having room for transaction. But nodes not having HDD room for blockchain that is ok no?

What's worse?

Small people can't host bitcoin - or small people can't use bitcoin?

Do you dream of a world where every poor man can proudly spend his hdd to host a payment network only the rich can use?

Bandwidth (throughput+latency) is much bigger issue than HDD storage.

If Bitcoin becomes a new reserve currency, it will be about as useful to small people as gold (IE not for everyday coffee purchases).

You are new here, so please review these two statements before spending more time worrying about your false 'can't use vs. can't host' dilemma:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Bandwidth (throughput+latency) is much bigger issue than HDD storage.

Latest news was that bandwith is no issue. That was why thinblocks was not accepted by core.

If Bitcoin becomes a new reserve currency, it will be about as useful to small people as gold (IE not for everyday coffee purchases).

What?

You mean, we don't need to make bitcoin usefull now, because it will be a reserve currency?

Really?

To put it in touch with finney's words: Maybe, maybe bitcoin will be a meta-currency some day, and maybe the transaction volume will be too big to be processed onchain. I'm not sure, but maybe -- someday -- but not now. The way we are routing now is the way to make sure bitcoin will never be anything like this.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bandwidth (throughput+latency) is much bigger issue than HDD storage.

Latest news was that bandwith is no issue. That was why thinblocks was not accepted by core.

If Bitcoin becomes a new reserve currency, it will be about as useful to small people as gold (IE not for everyday coffee purchases).

What?

You mean, we don't need to make bitcoin usefull now, because it will be a reserve currency?

Really?

Thinblocks weren't accepted by core for reasons besides "bandwidth is no issue."  Is there even a thinblock BIP under consideration?

Bitcoin is already useful, right now.  You may stop fretting and pouting about that.  Bitcoin is on a trajectory to become a reserve currency.

Did you read the two statements from Hal and davout?  Did you learn anything from them?  If you did, it isn't obvious.  You need more clues!  Or maybe you just need less misinformation.  Try staying away from /r/btc.  It's a hotbed of lies, conspiracy theories, and other forms of agitprop.

[AlexGR]

Bitcoin is, and will be, different things, for different people, in different time/space co-ordinates.

It cannot be defined as "e-cash", "decentralized paypal", "settlement network", "digital gold", "platform for blockchain-based apps" etc etc, because all these depend heavily on things that are dependent on time and space conditions.

At 3tx/s, one would say bitcoin can only be a settlement network or digital gold. However, due to low adoption right now, and for the previous 7 years, it can ...buy your coffee (ignoring double spending for a practical 0-conf payment). Fees like 2-3 cents don't register and are certainly not "settlement-network" level.

Could this change in 2-3-5 years if, say, we have a technological bottleneck in terms of scaling? yes it could.

Could this change AGAIN in 10-20 years, as tx/s capacity is in the tens of thousands/sec, allowing much more things than previously possible? yes it could