ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[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.

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

What prevents most of the miners reject such a block? Nothing. You took have an hour to verify this block, only to find out that the main chain already extended by 3 blocks and this block is orphaned, what is the point?

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.

The global average does not make any sense. You need only 7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized, and rest of the slow internet user can just use SPV nodes. And you can already do it today. In 5 years, those full nodes can be upgraded to 10Gbps

[1714678119]

1714678119

[1714678119]

1714678119

[1714678119]

1714678119

[1714678119]

1714678119

[1714678119]

1714678119

[hv_]

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.

Yep - that's the sad thing and might be a result of resources, that we all want to be better concentrated.

Having ideas (and also weired ones - here I'm expert ) is always good - but without the resources to analyze & settle them - they might got lost.

[Lauda]

What prevents most of the miners reject such a block? Nothing. You took have an hour to verify this block, only to find out that the main chain already extended by 3 blocks and this block is orphaned, what is the point?

So as a new user joining the system, I'm not allowed to mine the blocks that I want (within the block size limit)? Don't you see how idiotic this is?

The global average does not make any sense. You need only 7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized, and rest of the slow internet user can just use SPV nodes. And you can already do it today. In 5 years, those full nodes can be upgraded to 10Gbps

You are the one who isn't making sense. I have no idea why ICEBREAKER even lets you spread nonsense here. People who run nodes don't really have an incentive (aside from businesses and miners?) to spend even more money on them. Even if we disregard the cost in advanced countries, exactly how do you plan that node operators in third world countries to upgrade to 1 Gbps (not to mention 10 Gbps)? Oh right, they don't matter for you (IIRC you mentioned the network being okay with 100 nodes; I could be mistaken).
Are you going to provide the funds for this network-wide upgrade?

[ace9989]

Are you going to provide the funds for this network-wide upgrade?

That's not how it works. In his world everything is free for everyone, and we all live happily ever after.

[RealBitcoin]

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".

They will add a "give me all your coins" button in bitcoin classic, where the developers will just push 1 button to empty out random accounts and then blame it on core.

Thats the level of insanity that could happen with classic.

[YarkoL]

What prevents most of the miners reject such a block? Nothing. You took have an hour to verify this block, only to find out that the main chain already extended by 3 blocks and this block is orphaned, what is the point?

So as a new user joining the system, I'm not allowed to mine the blocks that I want (within the block size limit)? Don't you see how idiotic this is?

Of course you are allowed to, but then again, other users
are not forced to accept your too-expensive-to-validate blocks.

This is exactly the heart of the idea behind Bitcoin Unlimited.
We'd need to have a reasonably reliable idea what size blocks are
being accepted by the network at any given time without resorting
to a fixed limit that needs to be updated by devs.

I believe the best solution is the one originally suggested by Theymos: as a full
node operator, examine the capacity of your hardware and advertise your block
size preferences in transactions you make. Gather data about what preferences
other have. Upgrade your hardware or update your preferences, and in the
end the block size will converge on a Schelling point based on signalling.

[RealBitcoin]

I believe the best solution is the one originally suggested by Theymos: as a full
node operator, examine the capacity of your hardware and advertise your block
size preferences in transactions you make. Gather data about what preferences
other have. Upgrade your hardware or update your preferences, and in the
end the block size will converge on a Schelling point based on signalling.

Or in short mining software needs more updates and features, but not too many to not worsen performance.

But some features could improve performance as well. If you could specifically optimize mining to your hardware, then it would be fantastic, and the software designed that way.

[VeritasSapere]

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.

You might want check this out, a debate between me and gmaxwell:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

[VeritasSapere]

What I think some of you do not understand is that this is not a case of Classic vs Core, in an ideal world we would have both. All that classic changes in the short term is an increase the blocksize to two megabytes. Nobody is forced to adopt any of the other changes that Classic plans on implementing, regardless of what you are saying, all of this talk of a coup is just ridiculous. Unless you think that Core should decide on everything within Bitcoin, which in my opinion is antithetical to Bitcoin itself, we can have multiple competing implementations, this is critical for the correct functioning of the governance mechanism of Bitcoin. Core is hostile towards this idea, the very mechanism that guarantees our freedom within the protocol.

Classic just increases the blocksize to two megabytes, that is all it does, you are all treating it like the plague or something, coming up with these ridiculous stories when all that matters is the code, and the code is simple. Not the people, not their qualifications none of that matters. The simple truth is that increasing the blocksize to two megabytes is good for the network and Core refuses to do so in a timely fashion, they are not even communicating their plans clearly. Bitcoin deserves better then that, it should not be at the mercy of whatever decisions Core makes, especially considering they are a small group of people, with one person having the final say over decisions. This is not a good governance model for Bitcoin, it is only through multiple implementations that users have the freedom of choice.

[valiz]

Veritas wants increased adoption so he can get rich quick.

Veritas is a miner, a merchant, a user, and political philosopher.

Veritas hates people using other cryptocurrencies. (no mass adoptions = no get rich quick = bad)

Veritas wants unlimited max block size. (free transactions = mass adoptions = get rich quick = good)

Veritas wants much governance.

Veritas wants hardfork.

Veritas shouts ad hominem often.

Veritas is a very intelligent and capable person.

1 Veritas > 10 noob shills

[QuestionAuthority]

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.

Why would you bother to respond here? Pandering to the plebeians is unbecoming.

[CIYAM]

This is not a good governance model for Bitcoin, it is only through multiple implementations that users have the freedom of choice.

Strange - as you are only supporting *one* alternative implementation of Bitcoin (that is being controlled by one guy which supposedly you don't like as a structure) - where are the others (as you clearly don't support the core developers)?

As you don't like "one guy in charge" please get behind something that Gavin is not involved with for a start (at least then you'd look more honest with regards to your statements).

[VeritasSapere]

Veritas wants increased adoption so he can get rich quick.

Veritas is a miner, a merchant, a user, and political philosopher.

Veritas hates people using other cryptocurrencies. (no mass adoptions = no get rich quick = bad)

Veritas wants unlimited max block size. (free transactions = mass adoptions = get rich quick = good)

Veritas wants much governance.

Veritas wants hardfork.

Veritas shouts ad hominem often.

Veritas is a very intelligent and capable person.

1 Veritas > 10 noob shills

Thanks I guess, though some corrections, I do support the alternative cryptocurrencies especially considering that they are implementing Satoshi's vision when Bitcoin might not.

I do not think transactions should be free, there should be a free market for fees, the miners know their own parameters best they can decide what transactions to include and not to include.

Bitcoin is not just about getting rich, it is about doing good for the world, it is nice how the incentives of Bitcoin allign these two things, it is part of the beauty and power of Bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

This is not a good governance model for Bitcoin, it is only through multiple implementations that users have the freedom of choice.

Strange - as you are only supporting *one* alternative implementation of Bitcoin (that is being controlled by one guy which supposedly you don't like as a structure) - where are the others (as you clearly don't support the core developers)?

As you don't like "one guy in charge" please get behind something that Gavin is not involved with for a start (at least then you'd look more honest with regards to your statements).

This seems to be somewhat of a ridiculous statement, my preferred implementation is actually Bitcoin Unlimited. Every open source project is essentially a dictatorship out of necessity, including Core and Classic. The only way to distribute this power is through multiple implementations, and that is exactly what I am doing, what I am doing is completely consistent.

We each choose for ourselves what implementation we prefer, that way we do end up with a more decentralized development since if everyone chose freely they would surely not all choose the same client.

[CIYAM]

We each choose for ourselves what implementation we prefer, that way we do end up with a more decentralized development since if everyone chose freely they would surely not all choose the same client.

That makes zero sense when it comes to "consensus" (you can't just choose any software you want unless you want to risk destroying the value that has been created from the complying software that has built the blockchain).

It would make more sense to promote alt-coins than to try and promote destroying Bitcoin by having it forked to death.

If you're unhappy with Bitcoin then back an alt or perhaps create your own (it's really not that hard).

[VeritasSapere]

We each choose for ourselves what implementation we prefer, that way we do end up with a more decentralized development since if everyone chose freely they would surely not all choose the same client.

That makes zero sense when it comes to "consensus" (you can't just choose any software you want).

It would make more sense to promote alt-coins than to try and promote destroying Bitcoin by having it forked to death.

How does a single implementation which is essentially a dictatorship decided on by one guy, a viable model of governance for what is supposed to be a decentralized cryptocurrency? That is completely at odds with the ethos of Bitcoin. Right now we have more then five alternative implementations to Core, yet Bitcoin has not been destroyed by this freedom of choice. The tyranny of Core is not a viable option for the governance of Bitcoin, it might even be one of the major vulnerabilities in Bitcoin today as a point of centralization.

I am involved in the altcoins, and I am also involved in forking Bitcoin as a minority in the future. Even though I am well positioned to see Bitcoin become obsoleted and out competed if it refuses to change, I would still be sad to see Bitcoin go down in such a way.

[CIYAM]

How does a single implementation which is essentially a dictatorship decided on by one guy, a viable model of governance for what is supposed to be a decentralized cryptocurrency?

Strange - you may not have heard it - but Bitcoin was created by a dictatorship decided on by one guy (we know as Satoshi) - perhaps you ought to learn your history before you start trying to change the future?

(you can argue that Satoshi was not an individual but for sure it was not a "democracy")

[VeritasSapere]

How does a single implementation which is essentially a dictatorship decided on by one guy, a viable model of governance for what is supposed to be a decentralized cryptocurrency?

'
Strange - you may not have heard it - but Bitcoin was created by a dictatorship decided on by one guy (we know as Satoshi) - perhaps you ought to learn your history before trying to change the future?

Agreed, out of necessity it was just one guy that created it, over time however this power must become more distributed, that time is now, Bitcoin is growing and evolving. Surely you do not favor keeping development centralized under Core forever? If that was the case I would personally not consider Bitcoin to have much of a future at all, decentralization requires us to distribute this power just like Bitcoin has done for many other things.

Bitcoin is a form of democracy, I have explain this in more depth here: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/hello-shills.1002/#post-15816

[CIYAM]

Surely you do not favor keeping development centralized under Core forever? If that was the case I would personally not consider Bitcoin to have much of a future at all, decentralization requires us to distribute this power just like Bitcoin has done for many other things.

Here is what I see (as a software developer) - things like "libconsensus" are being developed to make it actually easier for other projects to do Bitcoin (and do it properly).

Now if the "core devs" were so hell bent on total control then why would they develop that in particular (and that is only one example - but I think the best example of why you have got things very wrong in your understanding)?

Maybe you aren't a coder so you simply "don't understand" but why not listen to people that do know this stuff rather than just joining in what has basically become a mob attack of the core developers?

[Lauda]

Agreed, out of necessity it was just one guy that created it, over time however this power must become more distributed, that time is now, Bitcoin is growing and evolving.

Nonsense. Nothing has to change and Bitcoin will keep working the same way that it does now. The word "must" is completed wrong here. There isn't a good reason for this unless you want other people to have github keys of the main implementation. Development is not centralized.