ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitcoin is also a private property system, and those that hold the most % of it, should have more rights over it. But as a guest, anybody can join.

These are interesting ideas. I have heard Bitcoin referred to as a private members club, yet open to all. Holding bitcoin gives you private membership rights to trade bitcoin with other members, temporary members or initiates.

[Carlton Banks]

I know that leftists dont like to think for the longer term, and only want free stuff now, but really if you want bitcoin to stay you have to think for 30-50 years ahead.

Careful with that left/right stuff, as it's all too easy for your object to use the abstract nature of the left/right paradigm to subvert your argument.

After all, you right-wing fascists are only using clever mental gymnastics to hoard your illegitimate greed. And remember, you Bitcoin Core guys are simultaneously the biggest leftists out there, what with your communist centrally planned coin. And those capitalist right-wing property rights that prevent the Bitcoin github from being a socialist free-for-all have got to go, as does that filthy meritocracy that keeps robbing me of my opportunity to get my (perfect) code committed. Oh, and the whole inconfiscatable thing is too liberal, too leftist.


After all, the left/right political theory exists for that reason alone: you can use it to box any opponent in, if their response allows it.

I`m not a right wing fascist.

Sadly, you missed my point. Read the post in full (I called you and the rest of the Bitcoin Core supporters thieving leftists on the following line).

I wasn't really insulting you, or really calling you a "right-wing fascist". I was deriding the entire concept by using extreme examples of both "left" and "right" political sleights against Bitcoin Core (I'm particularly proud of successfully attacking the git repo using both "left" and "right" )

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Ok, so when AI will write the assembly language then stuff will become efficient, thats good, but that also wont last forever.

Eventually you will hit a hardcap on efficiency and the growth curve will become logarithmic.


The stupid classic supporters on the other hand want exponential growth forever, which will eventually end bitcoin, inevitably.

When the gains from AI designed compilers and architectures flatten out, we'll design AI that creates better AI.

[RealBitcoin]

Bitcoin is also a private property system, and those that hold the most % of it, should have more rights over it. But as a guest, anybody can join.

These are interesting ideas. I have heard Bitcoin referred to as a private members club, yet open to all. Holding bitcoin gives you private membership rights to trade bitcoin with other members, temporary members or initiates.

Yes imagine it as a private club, where the entry ticket is bitcoin and the more you own, the higher rank you are with higher privileges.

But even though it's privately owned, it accepts guests without limits, and those guests can anytime become member if they start owning bitcoin.

When the gains from AI designed compilers and architectures flatten out, we'll design AI that creates better AI.

And the AI then will no longer see the need of keeping humans, and will terminate humanity. Really the terminator movies are only prophecies.

Sadly, you missed my point. Read the post in full (I called you and the rest of the Bitcoin Core supporters thieving leftists on the following line).

I dont see any issue here, nobody is robbed from anything. Everybody can contribute anytime to bitcoin, but the access is filtered to filter out bad ideas. Bitcoin development is highly specialized, and highly technical, so it requires a lot of skills, we cant just let anybody from the streets to mess with the code.

But if you or anyone has any development idea, create a blog, e-mail the developers, get your idea out there, and if it's good and tested ,and backed by good data, then it might be implemented, if not then not.

This is not a kingengarden playground anymore, but a scientific community, so unfortunately we have to limit access only to skilled people.

[Carlton Banks]

Sadly, you missed my point. Read the post in full (I called you and the rest of the Bitcoin Core supporters thieving leftists on the following line).

I dont see any issue here, nobody is robbed from anything. Everybody can contribute anytime to bitcoin, but the access is filtered to filter out bad ideas. Bitcoin development is highly specialized, and highly technical, so it requires a lot of skills, we cant just let anybody from the streets to mess with the code.

But if you or anyone has any development idea, create a blog, e-mail the developers, get your idea out there, and if it's good and tested ,and backed by good data, then it might be implemented, if not then not.

This is not a kingengarden playground anymore, but a scientific community, so unfortunately we have to limit access only to skilled people.

Ok, so you spectacularly missed the point a second time. I'm not actually offerring those words as _my_ opinion, but as the simulated opinion of _someone else_. So you're arguing with an imaginary human, created by me to make a rhetorical point. Sorry if that wasn't clear (but you can't have read the post as I suggested, as it was in fact abundantly clear)

[RealBitcoin]

Ok, so you spectacularly missed the point a second time. I'm not actually offerring those words as _my_ opinion, but as the simulated opinion of _someone else_. So you're arguing with an imaginary human, created by me to make a rhetorical point. Sorry if that wasn't clear (but you can't have read the post as I suggested, as it was in fact abundantly clear)

I dont like talking about abstract things and poetry when the issues here are concrete and evident.

The path is clear in front of bitcoin, and as much as anyone likes it or doesnt, and that path will be the path to success.


I havent seen any classic supporter explain to me the very simple yet fatal mistake classic has:

Cramming exponentially increasing block sizes into a logarithmically increasing hardware efficiency system (Asic speed, internet bandwidth and latency efficiency, harddisk capacity).

As soon as any classic supporter explains this to me how it will be possible, I`ll be happy to support classic myself.

[VeritasSapere]

Ok, so you spectacularly missed the point a second time. I'm not actually offerring those words as _my_ opinion, but as the simulated opinion of _someone else_. So you're arguing with an imaginary human, created by me to make a rhetorical point. Sorry if that wasn't clear (but you can't have read the post as I suggested, as it was in fact abundantly clear)

I dont like talking about abstract things and poetry when the issues here are concrete and evident.

The path is clear in front of bitcoin, and as much as anyone likes it or doesnt, and that path will be the path to success.


I havent seen any classic supporter explain to me the very simple yet fatal mistake classic has:

Cramming exponentially increasing block sizes into a logarithmically increasing hardware efficiency system (Asic speed, internet bandwidth and latency efficiency, harddisk capacity).

As soon as any classic supporter explains this to me how it will be possible, I`ll be happy to support classic myself.

I will give it a shot, and it is very simple really, Bitcoin Classic is only proposing to increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That is not an exponential increase at all.

Keep in mind that by supporting Classic now the only significant change over Core is that Bitcoin gets an increased blocksize, a single bump to two megabytes. You do not need to agree with the rest of the roadmap, when new issues come up switch clients again, even if you switch back to Core, run the client that best represent your beliefs, we do not have to accept all of the decisions Core makes. The participants of the network decide the rules of the network ultimately. The more people that understand this the more likely this power can be exercised.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/hello-shills.1002/#post-15816

I have always maintained that Bitcoin should obviously not be scaled beyond our technological limits, of course we need to draw a line somewhere in terms of trade offs, though I would not consider two megabytes to be beyond our technological limits, quite the opposite in fact. Overall I would consider an increase to two megabytes would actually help with decentralization over all because of all of the added benefits that increased adoption brings to a cryptocurrency. Since obviously rendering the Bitcoin network more expensive and less reliable is not good for adoption.

[exstasie]

VS, you obnoxious troll. It's less about 2MB and more about their attempt to force change without consensus, and their lack of any scaling solutions. Increasing the transaction load is not scaling you blathering idiot.

[gmaxwell]

Bitcoin Classic is only proposing to increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That is not an exponential increase at all.

This is Bitcoin "Classic"'s proposal:

Phase 3 (Q3-Q4) [2016] Make the block size limit dynamic.  Use a variation of Stephen Pair’s/BitPay proposal. Validation cost of a block must be less than a small multiple of the average cost over the last difficulty adjustment period.

The main developers of classic previously were pushing an effectively unlimited exponentially growing scheme. They generally reject the notion of any blocksize limit at all.

[BitUsher]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks  (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of  Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016  adaptive rule for a block size limit that  heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

In my heart of hearts, I think we could eliminate the limits and everything would work out just fine because I think Bitcoin really is resilient and I think the incentives are there for people to make sure it doesn’t break. Reasonable people could disagree about that, and I’m happy to compromise.

We saw through the "only 2MB and that's all" right away. It was a coup from the start, starting with 20MB blocks increasing exponentially to 2MB and increasing exponentially with no concerns of the externalized costs of spam on the network... or a radically different bitcoin than what most developers and users support.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Bitcoin Classic is only proposing to increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That is not an exponential increase at all.

This is Bitcoin "Classic"'s proposal:

Phase 3 (Q3-Q4)Make the block size limit dynamic.  Use a variation of Stephen Pair’s/BitPay proposal. Validation cost of a block must be less than a small multiple of the average cost over the last difficulty adjustment period.

It's a malicious miner anti-DoS limit, historically set much higher than the level of native block creation, and before serious amounts of investment was required to solve blocks. The use of this variable as an economic policy tool, is the very heart of this debate.

You employ populism in your tactic of draping yourself in the cloak of "protector of decentralization", but in reality, you have abrogated yourself to the level of central economic planner. In stark contrast to the system described by satoshi.

[gmaxwell]

Conspiracy theorize all you like, even if it were all true it wouldn't excuse making incorrect statements about Classic's plans...

[MeteoImpact]

VS, is there some big _Classic post or something that states all the stuff you've been posting? I ask because I feel that many of your points are arguments that I've seen gmaxwell respond to before when brought up by other people. He argues this stuff far better than I could ever hope to (being an actual developer and all), so I'd rather refer you to his posting history than bother trying to repeat stuff.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Conspiracy theorize all you like, even if it were all true it wouldn't excuse making incorrect statements about Classic's plans...

We're not talking about the Apollo missions being done on a Burbank soundstage. We're talking about Problem, Reaction, Solution. [then ipo]

[illyiller]

So Classic is just 2MB to start, then some other stuff? Well that was more than a bit deceiving. But is anyone really surprised? They are taking a line directly from the XT book. Be wary here, IMO.

[Lauda]

So Classic is just 2MB to start, then some other shit? Well that was more than a bit deceiving.

That's usually how it goes. They tell you "it's just Core with a 2 MB block size limit" to pull you towards them and then they start adding random "features".

Conspiracy theorize all you like, even if it were all true it wouldn't excuse making incorrect statements about Classic's plans...

You can't reason with them; just ignore such people.

We saw through the "only 2MB and that's all" right away. It was a coup from the start, starting with 20MB blocks increasing exponentially to 2MB and increasing exponentially with no concerns of the externalized costs of spam on the network... or a radically different bitcoin than what most developers and users support.

Just remember that 20 MB block size limit was "urgent" almost a year ago. If we had listening to him, who knows that would have happened.

[johnyj]

The block size limit is not the same as real block size. Even if you remove the limit, it does not mean miners will mine 100MB blocks, there will not be so many transactions with fee in 10 minutes. Attackers can send 100MB blocks but that will be rejected by miners immediately

I don't think we have ever reached the network bandwidth bottleneck. With an average 70% increase in transaction volume per year, the network will be fine at least for another 5 years, and by that time, 4K/8K TV rolling out will make the average home bandwidth jump to 1Gbps to be able to get 8K live broadcast

And the transaction volume can not keep growing like that forever. Once you reached hundred TPS, then the growth will be significantly slower due to market saturation (Many people would never use bitcoin, even if they are IT experts, they just had a holy view for fiat money)

[Lauda]

The block size limit is not the same as real block size. Even if you remove the limit, it does not mean miners will mine 100MB blocks, there will not be so many transactions with fee in 10 minutes. Attackers can send 100MB blocks but that will be rejected by miners immediately.

What prevents somebody from becoming a miner and mining such a block? Nothing.

I don't think we have ever reached the network bandwidth bottleneck. With an average 70% increase in transaction volume per year, the network will be fine at least for another 5 years, and by that time, 4K/8K TV rolling out will make the average home bandwidth jump to 1Gbps to be able to get 8K live broadcast

Global average in 2015: 5.1 Mbps; and you're trying to sell us the story that the global average will be 1 Gbps in 5 years (i.e. 200 times more)? Just stop.

[hv_]

So Classic is just 2MB to start, then some other shit? Well that was more than a bit deceiving.

That's usually how it goes. They tell you "it's just Core with a 2 MB block size limit" to pull you towards them and then they start adding random "features".

In general adding features is always good - if there is value. Right now, it might be the only chance for Classic  to get along with some more as just the 2mb.

Or - that's what I  prefer - it might finally lead to a code-compromise when the good features would come together (in core) and we can all sit back & calm down...

EDIT: Just go here and read how in good old days was discussed on fees ...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48.msg310#msg310

[Lauda]

I general adding features is always good - if there is value. Right now, it might be the only chance for Classic  to get along with some more as just the 2mb.

Or - that's what I  prefer - it might finally lead to a code-compromise when the good features would come together (in core) and we can all sit back & calm down...

The problem isn't features, it is manipulation. Even if we disregard whether the added features are good or not, you have to remember that they sold the story of "just Core with a 2 MB block size limit". Now they have moved away from it and started adding un-reviewed features (unless you could reviews by Toomin ). At least in the time of XT they weren't trying to sell you such a story.