ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[iCEBREAKER]

But they told me Classic was Core with only a 2 MB block size limit   

It was. Well, that plus a nice guard against malevolently-created blocks. A couple of releases ago. But there have been improvements since. Do try to keep up.

Improvements such as whatever is popular on Consider.it?   

[AlexGR]

The technical limit is artificial, it could be 1.1 mb or 0.8 mb or 1.111 mb, doesnt matter. The point is that the smaller the blocksize the better, because Moore's law is pseudoscience, and all growth functions tent to be logarithmic, not exponential.

Moore's law wasn't intended to last forever. However it deals primarily with miniaturization and not direct performance improvement.

SIMD instructions are a fine example of how the same transistors can become much faster in executing calculations. You could be using 4 or 8 clocks to do what you now only need one clock cycle. And if you widen the bits that can fit, you could make it 16.

Unfortunately, we are like ~20 years after mmx, and 15 years after SSE & SSE2, and still most compilers are very shitty in taking advantage of the extended instruction sets and too few people will write assembly to take advantage of faster code execution - let alone for very modern instruction sets.

There is a lot of performance right now in our chips that isn't even being used.

I believe there'll come a time, perhaps as early as the early 2020's, when code compilers will be AI-driven. Meaning they will be able to think and act like humans (or better) in applying code optimization, where code can be optimized and paralleled. They will be like ...sentient interpreters. You just give them the code and they'll give you the best machine code for your hardware.. and as they evolve, they will not even need code but specifications of what to do, how they will be controlled, etc.

When this happens, the performance gains will dwarf any technological gains because the technological gains have been neutralized for years due to ...Wirth's law and bloated software, so this trend will reverse at full speed. At that moment we'll have made a leap of performance that may be equivalent to ~10 years of processor advances, but also other hardware advances as well. Compression is a key factor in increasing memory, storage and transmission capacities but it is typically unused due to the processing costs. If compression and decompression can be simultaneously high ratio and fast, at that point it is worth it.

Having said that about the future, we should remember that a lot of processing power is left on the table right now, whether in CPU instruction sets or even GPUs with their thousands of cores.

[VeritasSapere]

900 Unconfirmed now, it's a very fluid network now.

Looks like if nobody is attacking the network, it all works fine.

Whenever the network does get congested people leave and different use cases are pushed out, demand will stay aligned with the artificial scarcity enforced through the blocksize limit. This process can continue until Bitcoin is not the dominant cryptocurrency anymore, even then you might be able to say that the blocksize never needed to be increased, while cryptocurrencies that are willing to scale will overtake Bitcoin.

Allowing the network to get congested makes transacting on the Bitcoin network more expensive and less reliable, this is not good for adoption especially considering that we could just increase the blocksize to two megabytes, most alt-coins already have far greater transactional throughput when compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin does need to be able to compete.

There is a technical limit that reputable engineers are saying us.

Your words and opinions mean nothing, either you have data supporting your opinions or you are just talking to yourself.


The technical limit is artificial, it could be 1.1 mb or 0.8 mb or 1.111 mb, doesnt matter. The point is that the smaller the blocksize the better, because Moore's law is pseudoscience, and all growth functions tent to be logarithmic, not exponential.

While you want an exponentially increasing blocksize, it will fail. But of course you havent checked the data, you are just pulling out ideas from your ass.

The facts are supporting what I am saying, Bitcoin can easily handle two megabyte blocks and smaller blocks are not better unless you think that transactions becoming more expensive and less reliable is a good thing. There is not enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed with such a restricted blocksize. I understand that technological growth is unlikely to continue growing exponentially, however while our technological limits can still handle it we should allow Bitcoin to continue to grow exponantially since that is what is good for Bitcoin in regards to the virtues cycle of adoption, value, security and utility.

[Lauda]

The facts are supporting what I am saying, Bitcoin can easily handle two megabyte blocks and smaller blocks are not better unless you think that transactions becoming more expensive and less reliable is a good thing. There is not enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed with such a restricted blocksize. I understand that technological growth is unlikely to continue growing exponentially, however while our technological limits can still handle it we should allow Bitcoin to continue to grow exponantially since this is what is good for Bitcoin in regards to the virtues cycle of adoption, value, security and utility.

There is nothing that would justify going for a 2 MB block size limit instead of Segwit, especially when it is so close to completion. We've talked about this a few times already. You will get the desired expansion in transaction capacity. Additionally, there should be a block size increase proposal afterwards. Nobody really knows why 'you guys' keep on rambling.

[Yogafan00000]

The facts are supporting what I am saying, Bitcoin can easily handle two megabyte blocks and smaller blocks are not better unless you think that transactions becoming more expensive and less reliable is a good thing. There is not enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed with such a restricted blocksize. I understand that technological growth is unlikely to continue growing exponentially, however while our technological limits can still handle it we should allow Bitcoin to continue to grow exponantially since that is what is good for Bitcoin in regards to the virtues cycle of adoption, value, security and utility.

When I read the forums and debates on the blocksize, I informally take note of who is saying what.  I definitely notice a trend that it's a very limited amount of people who are in support of  Classics arguments.

It appears that a very small minority is responsible for the overwhelming majority of disagreements about the future of Bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

The facts are supporting what I am saying, Bitcoin can easily handle two megabyte blocks and smaller blocks are not better unless you think that transactions becoming more expensive and less reliable is a good thing. There is not enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed with such a restricted blocksize. I understand that technological growth is unlikely to continue growing exponentially, however while our technological limits can still handle it we should allow Bitcoin to continue to grow exponantially since this is what is good for Bitcoin in regards to the virtues cycle of adoption, value, security and utility.

There is nothing that would justify going for a 2 MB block size limit instead of Segwit, especially when it is so close to completion. We've talked about this a few times already. You will get the desired expansion in transaction capacity. Additionally, there should be a block size increase proposal afterwards. Nobody really knows why 'you guys' keep on rambling.

Segwit makes further blocksize increases problematic after it is implemented, you should stop pretending that you want Bitcoin to scale directly, or at the very least acknowledge that this is not Core's intention over the long run, they have made this very clear now.

Segwit is far to complex and its implementation is being rushed, this is dangerous. Increasing the blocksize is a much simpler change while it also increases transactional capacity more then Segwit does.

Segwit should be implemented as a hard fork since then its technical implementation would be superior, soft forks are an attempt to bypass the consensus mechanism, this should not be allowed. Not to mention the dangers of "anyonecanspend", this opens up an attack vector where people that have not upgraded can get their coins stolen by malicious miners. I would consider such an attack vector to be unacceptable. It is better to just allow those nodes to drop of the network like they would under a hard fork, compared to neutering them and opening up potential vulnerabilities.

There is also fee discount for certain transaction types that favor the lighting network, a seventy five percent discount actually, considering that these transactions also take up more data on the blockchain it is pretty terrible. I do not favor this type of economic planning it goes against the very ethos of Bitcoin.

The changes to the scripting language also allows Core to make radical changes to Bitcoin while bypassing the consensus mechanism even more completly, this is a very troublesome development and I would personally lose all confidence in Bitcoin once this is implemented.

Segwit is also less efficient in terms of the data that is used per transaction, Segwit actually makes Bitcoin transactions take up more data when compared to what we have today, just splitting the transaction data up into different fields does not actually make it more efficient.

As you can see I have many grievances with Segwit, I am not against Segwit in principle since fixing malleability is important, however I would favor a simplified version of Segwit, without the discount for certain transaction types and without the scripting language changes that allows Core to radically change Bitcoin by bypassing the consensus mechanism. It should also be implemented as a hard fork since this is what gives people the freedom of choice, it would also solve the other attack vector I mentioned.

It is good to also keep in mind that using the soft fork method for deploying Segwit any changes can be made, including increasing the blocksize or the supply of Bitcoin itself, turning full nodes into non validating nodes whenever such changes are made. This is an ugly hack, hard forks are far more elegant and represent the cornerstone of the very governance mechanism of Bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

The facts are supporting what I am saying, Bitcoin can easily handle two megabyte blocks and smaller blocks are not better unless you think that transactions becoming more expensive and less reliable is a good thing. There is not enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed with such a restricted blocksize. I understand that technological growth is unlikely to continue growing exponentially, however while our technological limits can still handle it we should allow Bitcoin to continue to grow exponantially since that is what is good for Bitcoin in regards to the virtues cycle of adoption, value, security and utility.

When I read the forums and debates on the blocksize, I informally take note of who is saying what.  I definitely notice a trend that it's a very limited amount of people who are in support of  Classics arguments.

It appears that a very small minority is responsible for the overwhelming majority of disagreements about the future of Bitcoin.

It is true that the people commentating are in the minority, this always tends to be the case with online forums such as this, however it is good to keep in mind that the communication has splintered, communities have split up. Bitcointalk and r/bitcoin is mostly occupied with small blockist now, whereas r/btc and bitco.in is predominantly occupied by big blockists. Come and visit me in bitco.in, you will find more dissenting voices there, echo chambers are not healthy for our thinking, which is in part why I am commentating here now.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-443

[Lauda]

Segwit makes further blocksize increases problematic after it is implemented, you should stop pretending that you want Bitcoin to scale directly, or at the very least acknowledge that this is not Core's intention over the long run, they have made this very clear now.

It doesn't. There is no such thing as "Core's" intention. Core is not a company, nor a centralized group with leadership.

Segwit is far to complex and its implementation is being rushed, this is dangerous. Increasing the blocksize is a much simpler change while it also increases transactional capacity more then Segwit does.

Logic presented:"I'm lacking knowledge and since I can barely grasp this concept it must be far to complex.". I though fallacies were your thing (hint: personal incredulity). There isn't still a valid reason to opt in for the blocksize limit increase over Segwit, all I see is rambling about complexity.

-snip-

The rest is an indirect copy from somewhere. Which forum is it?

It is good to also keep in mind that using the soft fork method for deploying Segwit any changes can be made, including increasing the blocksize or the supply of Bitcoin itself, turning full nodes into non validating nodes whenever such changes are made.

Source?

This is an ugly hack, hard forks are far more elegant and represent the cornerstone of the very governance mechanism of Bitcoin.

No matter how many times you repeat such idiotic statements, it won't make them true ("elegant").

[VeritasSapere]

Segwit makes further blocksize increases problematic after it is implemented, you should stop pretending that you want Bitcoin to scale directly, or at the very least acknowledge that this is not Core's intention over the long run, they have made this very clear now.

It doesn't. There is no such thing as "Core's" intention. Core is not a company, nor a centralized group with leadership.

This seems to be a ridiculous statement, Core does have an intention and vision for Bitcoin as they should, it is a vision I fundamentally disagree with though, you denying that they even have a plan and vision for Bitcoin is not helping your case.

Segwit is far to complex and its implementation is being rushed, this is dangerous. Increasing the blocksize is a much simpler change while it also increases transactional capacity more then Segwit does.

Logic presented:"I'm lacking knowledge and since I can barely grasp this concept it must be far to complex.". I though fallacies were your thing (hint: personal incredulity). There isn't still a valid reason to opt in for the blocksize limit increase over Segwit, all I see is rambling about complexity.

Complexity should be avoided, one of the things Bitcoin has going for it over the alt coins is simplicity, Bitcoin needs to be able to be understood by everyday people, adding complexity does not help this case. It is revealing that you do see the value in keeping Bitcoin as simple as possible to understand.

It is good to also keep in mind that using the soft fork method for deploying Segwit any changes can be made, including increasing the blocksize or the supply of Bitcoin itself, turning full nodes into non validating nodes whenever such changes are made.

Source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/45mc4q/block_size_can_be_increased_using_soft_fork_here/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1296628.0

This is an ugly hack, hard forks are far more elegant and represent the cornerstone of the very governance mechanism of Bitcoin.

No matter how many times you repeat such idiotic statements, it won't make them true ("elegant").

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yqe7c/segregated_witness_still_sounds_complicated_why/cyg2w0y

[pereira4]

Segwit makes further blocksize increases problematic after it is implemented, you should stop pretending that you want Bitcoin to scale directly, or at the very least acknowledge that this is not Core's intention over the long run, they have made this very clear now.

It doesn't. There is no such thing as "Core's" intention. Core is not a company, nor a centralized group with leadership.

This seems to be a ridiculous statement, Core does have an intention and vision for Bitcoin as they should, it is a vision I fundamentally disagree with though, you denying that they even have a plan and vision for Bitcoin is not helping your case.

Segwit is far to complex and its implementation is being rushed, this is dangerous. Increasing the blocksize is a much simpler change while it also increases transactional capacity more then Segwit does.

Logic presented:"I'm lacking knowledge and since I can barely grasp this concept it must be far to complex.". I though fallacies were your thing (hint: personal incredulity). There isn't still a valid reason to opt in for the blocksize limit increase over Segwit, all I see is rambling about complexity.

Complexity should be avoided, one of the things Bitcoin has going for it over the alt coins is simplicity, Bitcoin needs to be able to be understood by everyday people, adding complexity does not help this case. It is revealing that you do see the value in keeping Bitcoin as simple as possible to understand.

It is good to also keep in mind that using the soft fork method for deploying Segwit any changes can be made, including increasing the blocksize or the supply of Bitcoin itself, turning full nodes into non validating nodes whenever such changes are made.

Source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/45mc4q/block_size_can_be_increased_using_soft_fork_here/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1296628.0

This is an ugly hack, hard forks are far more elegant and represent the cornerstone of the very governance mechanism of Bitcoin.

No matter how many times you repeat such idiotic statements, it won't make them true ("elegant").

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yqe7c/segregated_witness_still_sounds_complicated_why/cyg2w0y

Yeah as if "let's just raise the blocksize, fuck centralization of nodes" wasn't a huge complex problem.
Every guy that wants bigger blocks is delusional and thinks you can scale protocols by running everything on the core.. its nonsense.
The sooner we stop this idea of hardforking to pay sighlty less fees for a small amount of time on the chain, the sooner people will realize this is a stupid practice, specially once we have LN.
It's time to accept reality: Bitcoin can never scale anywhere with on-chain transactions, so let's work on additional layers and leave the core as decentralized as possible, because if you centralize the core by making running nodes increasingly difficult for average joes at home, then that will be the end of BTC.

Also I don't undestand your point of "complexity should be avoided because people has to understand that..."

What the fuck dude. People don't give a damn about how Bitcoin works, they just want to send and receive transactions. Only geeks and technological people will care about the inner workings. How many people you know that knows how the banking tech works? Exactly 0.

[Carlton Banks]

Lol @ Falitas Sapere, still running on raw false assertions? Remember when you and your lie-backed corporate takeover lost? (well, it was largely ignored by the people who acutally matter)


Remember that? You lost. You're not going to win with more lies. Go back to bitcoin.com

[VeritasSapere]

Not sure if you have noticed but the node count has actually increased over the last year, disproving your theories of node centralization.

Recording all transactions on a single ledger is part of what defines Bitcoin, it had its critics even when Satoshi was still around. Many of the people within Core do not believe in this original vision, the people behind Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited still do. Bitcoin can scale, regardless of what you say, and if Bitcoin does not scale, what can I say but be prepared for Bitcoin to become the myspace of cryptocurrency. Since most of the alternative cryptocurrencies already have far greater transactional capacity compared to Bitcoin today.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

[jbreher]

It appears that a very small minority is responsible for the overwhelming majority of disagreements about the future of Bitcoin.

I guess it depends upon what you consider 'a very small minority'.

[watashi-kokoto]

Since most of the alternative cryptocurrencies already have far greater transactional capacity compared to Bitcoin today.

Therefore, raising the capacity of Bitcoin is unnecessary.

When you make a mistake, you sometimes tell the truth...

EDIT: we should do something about the endless appeal to authority. It's starting to get pretty boring fast imo

[pereira4]

Not sure if you have noticed but the node count has actually increased over the last year, disproving your theories of node centralization.

Recording all transactions on a single ledger is part of what defines Bitcoin, it had its critics even when Satoshi was still around. Many of the people within Core do not believe in this original vision, the people behind Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited still do. Bitcoin can scale, regardless of what you say, and if Bitcoin does not scale, what can I say but be prepared for Bitcoin to become the myspace of cryptocurrency. Since most of the alternative cryptocurrencies already have far greater transactional capacity compared to Bitcoin today.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Again, total node raised due fake Bitcoin Classic nodes, actual nodes have decreased, mainly because people no longer are forced to run Core to have a wallet, there's tons of other options now, and most people can't be bothered to download the entire blockchain, so the last thing we need is alienate people even more to run nodes by making it more heavy.

Of course Bitcoin can scale on-chain, if you centralize the nodes... pick one, you can't have both. We'll never compete with any centralized solutions all on-chain, this is a fact, I mean who doesn't understand this yet?

If Bitcoin doesn't scale to pay coffees with it for whatever reason, then it still will be a very valuable "Gold 2.0" solution. I would gladly pay a good fee for a technology that guarantees im on a decentralized network backed by the biggest amount of computing power on earth.
I don't need this level of security to pay a damn coffee, so I would use whatever it's out there. Hopefully LN, because it will be infinitely times better than anything we have now.

All those altcoins are irrelevant, they would run under the same problems eventually, and they would need to either start centralizing the network, or start applying layers.

[BitUsher]

It appears that a very small minority is responsible for the overwhelming majority of disagreements about the future of Bitcoin.

I guess it depends upon what you consider 'a very small minority'.

They openly admit to sybil attacking the network by buying many cloud nodes . They are actively promoting cloud node services and encouraging individuals to spool up as many as they can. Over 51% of Classic nodes are hosted at AWS - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Amazon.com,%20Inc  and https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Amazon.com%20Tech%20Telecom. One user bought 800 classic cloud nodes - https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4aka3f/over_3000_classic_nodes/d113ffi

This isn't decentralization and actually hurts the security of the network!

[watashi-kokoto]

These fags aren't really our league. Let's just laugh at them shall we.

I one handed could handle thousands of shills posting 24/7 around the clock. They don't really know who they're dealing with.

Taking over Bitcoin. LOL

Satoshi Vision as seen on television

Bitcoin Dead 2.0 in june all over the world, price drop 14%

[Carlton Banks]

They are actively promoting cloud node services and encouraging individuals to spool up as many as they can. Over 51% of Classic nodes are hosted at AWS - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Amazon.com,%20Inc  and https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=Amazon.com%20Tech%20Telecom.

It's a totally bizarre strategy: what does one individual need 800 nodes for? I run one Bitcoin node, and it gets used to send and receive my transactions.

Trying to appeal to the public this way will only result in people actually investigating what running a node actually means. I suspect that the minority of people that would actually buy 800 Cloud nodes after having done their homework on this issue would be disappearingly tiny.

[VeritasSapere]

Not sure if you have noticed but the node count has actually increased over the last year, disproving your theories of node centralization.

Recording all transactions on a single ledger is part of what defines Bitcoin, it had its critics even when Satoshi was still around. Many of the people within Core do not believe in this original vision, the people behind Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited still do. Bitcoin can scale, regardless of what you say, and if Bitcoin does not scale, what can I say but be prepared for Bitcoin to become the myspace of cryptocurrency. Since most of the alternative cryptocurrencies already have far greater transactional capacity compared to Bitcoin today.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Again, total node raised due fake Bitcoin Classic nodes, actual nodes have decreased, mainly because people no longer are forced to run Core to have a wallet, there's tons of other options now, and most people can't be bothered to download the entire blockchain, so the last thing we need is alienate people even more to run nodes by making it more heavy.

Of course Bitcoin can scale on-chain, if you centralize the nodes... pick one, you can't have both. We'll never compete with any centralized solutions all on-chain, this is a fact, I mean who doesn't understand this yet?

If Bitcoin doesn't scale to pay coffees with it for whatever reason, then it still will be a very valuable "Gold 2.0" solution. I would gladly pay a good fee for a technology that guarantees im on a decentralized network backed by the biggest amount of computing power on earth.
I don't need this level of security to pay a damn coffee, so I would use whatever it's out there. Hopefully LN, because it will be infinitely times better than anything we have now.

All those altcoins are irrelevant, they would run under the same problems eventually, and they would need to either start centralizing the network, or start applying layers.

It is a false dichotomy to say that we either scale or we centralized the nodes, this choice exists on a spectrum. Sure we do increase the centralization pressure on the nodes when we increase the blocksize limit but there are other benefits to this that need to be balanced on the whole. Making Bitcoin more attractive for mass adoption can actually further increase the node count because there will be more people that actually have real reasons to run full nodes themselves, it should be a balancing act, restricting the growth of the network now is a grave mistake.

Your "Gold 2.0" scenario will not come about if Bitcoin can not continue also being a currency, and even if it does then you can have a small community that believes in this while Bitcoin becomes completely obsoleted, out competed and overtaken because other alternative cryptocurrencies can do both as was always the intention with Bitcoin. Bitcoin will become a small niche cryptocurrency for people with this peculiar ideology.

I think Bitcoin can increase the blocksize now, therefore it is not a problem for the alternative cryptocurrencies to do so, however even if you believe that this is impossible, or it leads to dangerous centralization, which I disagree with obviously, alternative solutions do exists, like incentivized full nodes and self funding blockchains. Among many more possible innovations. You might be blind to the competition but I am not.

[BitUsher]

It's a totally bizarre strategy: what does one individual need 800 nodes for? I run one Bitcoin node, and it gets used to send and receive my transactions.

Trying to appeal to the public this way will only result in people actually investigating what running a node actually means. I suspect that the minority of people that would actually buy 800 Cloud nodes after actually having done their homework on this issue would be disappearingly tiny.

Their rationalization is these nodes are mostly crowdfunded with donations and indirectly reflect a large pool of users. If this is true than it indicates the following:

1) Classic supporters are probabilistically less technical since many don't know how to run their own node and don't understand the security implications of pooling the nodes all one network provider ...AWS and in which one company (probably 1 person ) has access to all those nodes.

2) Certain individuals with larger checkbooks will be able to afford donating more thus the total node count certainly doesn't represent each individual proportionately and gives a skewed perspective of support.

What is more surprising about all of this is the fact that they have only managed to create about half the nodes compared to Core despite the sybil attack. Since running a node is still relatively inexpensive, very easy to propagate, and they are definitely highly motivated one must question why haven't they been able to overtake Core node count when they are embarrassingly promoting active sybil attacks on the network(likely due to ignorance of the security implications) ? This must indicate both their numbers of supporters and overall wealth must be much lower than we perceive.