ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[hdbuck]

gavincoin, hearncoin, toomincoin, coinbasecoin and now ladies and gentlemen... bitpaycoin shoemakercoin!

https://twitter.com/davoutplantaire/status/712022762542473216

[VeritasSapere]

What you are describing is security through obscurity, I favor security through ubiquity.

[BitUsher]

How hypocritically petty some Classic users are ...

"We want Extra capacity immediately"

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4bc6lm/the_irony_segregated_wittness_softfork_may_not/

But we have plans on blocking Segwit capacity improvements because it is a capacity upgrade from them and not us.

Hopefully the classic miners aren't so petty as the classic redditers so we can get more capacity and all the other benefits of segwit. 

[Lauda]

You are missing an important point here, which is that we are operating of the presumption that the majority of miners will not act maliciously. After all if this presumption was not true then Bitcoin would be fundamentally flawed anyway.

Nope, this is not what I'm talking about. I could try explaining it from the begging, but I don't feel it is worth our time since it is about a hypothetical situation (100 MB block size limit with 5 MB average usage).

I would say that we should think for ourselves, listen to the arguments of both sides and make up your own mind. I would argue that it is your authoritarian logic that is flawed.

Yeah, keep drinking the kool-aid from people that have limited knowledge and impaired abilities.

What johnyj wants is something I call CoinbaseCoin.  CoinbaseCoin is what we'd get if we prematurely (IE prior to post-fiat Cryptopia) restrict Bitcoin to data centers, ignoring the engineering requirement it be above the law.

When Bitcoin has accomplished its primary mission of disrupting central banking and ensuring Chancellors may no longer consider bailouts for TBTF banks, then we may relegate most full nodes to data centers. But until we usher in the Golden Age of Satoshi, full nodes must be kept in places where the long arm of the BIS cannot easily reach.

Well said.

[iCEBREAKER]

limiting Bitcoin to 7000 nodes exclusively in data centers undermines the DIVERSITY of its network (and thus its interesting antifragile property).

What you are describing is security through obscurity, I favor security through ubiquity.

What I described is security though DIVERSITY (in conjunction with diffuseness/defensibility/resiliency).

I didn't say nodes should ONLY exist in obscure Asian jungles and Florida swaps, to the exclusion of ubiquity.

I said those far-flung geographically/politically obscure full nodes are essential complements to the high bandwidth ones hosted in data centers (not, as you dishonestly imply, replacements for them).

That would be plainly obvious if you hadn't omitted the quote(s) to which you were purportedly responding.

Knock off the lying by omission and context redaction, or GTFO.

[Thatstinks]

Toomincoin the new bitcoin for the elite or should I say anyone who wants to own a bitcoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

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

... it is a bit more than that, you've omitted the Gavin cargo cult angle to it.

...The name derives from the belief that various ritualistic acts will lead to a bestowing of material wealth ("cargo").[1][2]

Cargo cults often develop during a combination of crises. Under conditions of social stress, such a movement may form under the leadership of a charismatic figure. This leader may have a "vision" (or "myth-dream") of the future, often linked to an ancestral efficacy ("mana") thought to be recoverable by a return to traditional morality.[1][3] This leader may characterize the present state regimes as a dismantling of the old social order, meaning that social hierarchy and ego boundaries have been broken down....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult people behave strangely when you throw money into the mix.

[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.

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

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

I find it deeply troubling that you seem to consider an environment of multiple implementations that constantly threaten to fork the Bitcoin network over their pet issues to be the healthiest system. Altcoins are a fantastic mechanism for testing new ideas and proposing different models, without the threat of forcing, "upgrades", across the entire ecosystem, inadvertently stealing people's coins, and possibly breaking everything if a hard fork is made to a faulty client--which is what clients like Classic threaten to do. gmaxwell doesn't seem to express an interest in working in that sort of environment--for reasons that should be pretty obvious--and I'd imagine that a great number of other developers would share similar positions on the matter.

The amount of discussion had over opt-in RBF was rather surprising; making out a node policy change like that to be as contentious as changes to consensus rules was mind-boggling.

[exstasie]

The Visa-killing 1000tps-on-Layer-One thing johnyj wants isn't Bitcoin.  Bitcoin lives in diverse niches, deep in the jungles of Asia and swamps of Florida; it cannot be shut down by a few phones calls to some (uninvested/unintersted) NETOPS guys at a few dozen COLO facilities.

In fact you just need a couple of phone calls to arrest Blockstream devs and stop Chinese mining pools to disable bitcoin network TODAY

Arrest them for what, exactly? The latter doesn't change anything -- if hash rate drops, miners elsewhere will pick up the slack, assuming it is profitable. If hash rate drops extremely quickly, we can release an update that causes the difficulty algorithm to update faster.

The dream of money launderers and drug dealers using TOR to do secret bitcoin transactions is what current core devs promote, but this "hide from your parents" children game will come to an end when the size of bitcoin economy grow enough large. At that time it will be too naive if you still think that you can hide from the governments. Governments have hundreds of ways to disable bitcoin if they want, chinese government has already demonstrated that power

How so? They can issue bans, but they can't disable anything.

So either you take the enterprise approach and make it official and regulated and accepted by the governments (thus you will never have any problem with bandwidth), or you play shady underground economy and be chased by FBI every day, that's your choice

What does being regulated have to do with bandwidth limitations? Those are infrastructural limits, nothing to do with the prospect of government prohibition.

I am beginning to think you are even more clueless than franky. But no one could top VS on the short bus candidate list. That guy is a Grade A Retard.

[Lauda]

I find it deeply troubling that you seem to consider an environment of multiple implementations that constantly threaten to fork the Bitcoin network over their pet issues to be the healthiest system.

Nobody in their right mind would suggest something like this (seems something wrong with Veritas). We are talking about introducing competition in a consensus based algorithm. Do they not see how wrong this sounds? Bitcoin should remain as is.

In fact you just need a couple of phone calls to arrest Blockstream devs and stop Chinese mining pools to disable bitcoin network TODAY

Arrest them for what, exactly? The latter doesn't change anything -- if hash rate drops, miners elsewhere will pick up the slack, assuming it is profitable. If hash rate drops extremely quickly, we can release an update that causes the difficulty algorithm to update faster.

The thinking is that if Classic took over right now, this problem (fear mongering) would magically disappear.

I am beginning to think you are even more clueless than franky. But no one could top VS on the short bus candidate list. That guy is a Grade A Retard.

He wasn't always like this; something drastically changed in the recent months. I wonder why.

[johnyj]

Arrest them for what, exactly? The latter doesn't change anything -- if hash rate drops, miners elsewhere will pick up the slack, assuming it is profitable. If hash rate drops extremely quickly, we can release an update that causes the difficulty algorithm to update faster.

Provide money laundering infrastructure is one excuse. You know KNC's bank account has been shut down by SWEDBANK because some of the buyers are using mining infrastructure investment to launder money

Governments have hundreds of ways to disable bitcoin if they want, chinese government has already demonstrated that power

How so? They can issue bans, but they can't disable anything.

They only need to shutdown the channel towards fiat money to make majority of the activities disappear. I see that as the first direct threat to bitcoin if it goes mainstream. Chinese central bank prohibited financial institutions to do bitcoin related transactions, but currently chinese exchanges still operates. I don't know how they managed to operate, but I guess they use lots of private relations (in China almost everything works depends on personal relations). They will get hit if the central bank sound another alarm

So either you take the enterprise approach and make it official and regulated and accepted by the governments (thus you will never have any problem with bandwidth), or you play shady underground economy and be chased by FBI every day, that's your choice

What does being regulated have to do with bandwidth limitations? Those are infrastructural limits, nothing to do with the prospect of government prohibition.

If Government officially support bitcoin, then you don't need to hide your bitcoin nodes, you can build thousands of enterprise level nodes around the world, even draw 40Tbps fiber lines across the ocean to specifically serve the bitcoin network, so that on chain scaling will never be a problem. Of course the chinese GFW will still be a problem, but same, if the government said yes to bitcoin, then it might be possible to setup your own fiber

The current things in Venezuela does not sounds so good, because fiat money is a great way to tax the population, if bitcoin rises then that ability to tax the population will be threatened, I just don't see how bitcoin can pass that line without being heavily restricted

[Carlton Banks]

The current things in Venezuela does not sounds so good, because fiat money is a great way to tax the population, if bitcoin rises then that ability to tax the population will be threatened, I just don't see how bitcoin can pass that line without being heavily restricted

Bitcoin has already risen, several times. Governments can't tax it. Any more questions, Jonny?

[iCEBREAKER]

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/03/21/first-global-credit-ceo-gavin-smith-on-bitcoin/

NewsBTC: Despite being a famous company in Bitcoin space, you have remained quite calm on Bitcoin block size issue? How do you see the current scenario?

Gavin: My view on this is very different to that of Brian Armstrong.  I believe that, providing the timetable is maintained, the proposal by the core developers to introduce Segregated Witness followed by a blocksize increase in 2017 after extensive testing is the correct approach.

Brian Armstrong’s view is based on how his company uses bitcoin. They need to complete a large number of what can be very small transactions. He is less concerned about bitcoin as a store of value, for him it’s all about the transaction fee. His willingness to propose rapid change, with what I and many others consider inadequate time for testing might keep transaction throughput cheap and efficient, but I feel is imprudent.

First Global Credit, on the other hand, is striving to build a capital market around digital currencies in general and bitcoin in particular. Therefore, we prefer an approach that ensures the hard fork is carefully tested and adequate time is taken to ensure the change doesn’t have unexpected consequences that adversely impact bitcoin as a store of value – we believe the proposal by the Core team meets this objective.

Did you notice any funny volume fluctuations on your platform during the recent FUD against Bitcoin?

One thing that has been a constant in the Bitcoin space is the disinformation spread by the mainstream media about its viability.  I think it’s a shame that some within the community have now started adopting the same tactics to promote their own agenda but I guess that’s to be expected when corporates start to get involved.

[Lauda]

Briam Armstrong is a special case apparently. He's talking about corporations promoting their own agendas when he's the main person doing so. Additionally, let's not forget that he has shown support for and has promoted a sybil attack on the network.

[thejaytiesto]

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).

I let johnyj spread nonsense because that creates a teachable moment.

For example, his nonsensical assertion about the network only needing "7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized" provies an ideal opportunity for educating him about the role DIVERSITY plays in a DIVERSE/diffuse/defensible/resilient (AKA "decentralized") network.

Thanks to his nonsense, we now have the chance to point out that limiting Bitcoin to 7000 nodes exclusively in data centers undermines the DIVERSITY of its network (and thus its interesting antifragile property).

I don't get how this guy is still posting after implying "7000 enterprise level internet connection as full nodes" being all that's needed to keep the network running is a good thing. Is he for real?

Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.

[Lauda]

I don't get how this guy is still posting after implying "7000 enterprise level internet connection as full nodes" being all that's needed to keep the network running is a good thing. Is he for real?

Good question. I'm certain that people like him would not mind all those "enterprise level" nodes being run on a single datacenter as well. There were even people saying that non-mining nodes don't matter at all.

Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.

Indeed. Without decentralization, Bitcoin is nothing. This is why we need to work to retain as much of it as possible.

[hdbuck]

I don't get how this guy is still posting after implying "7000 enterprise level internet connection as full nodes" being all that's needed to keep the network running is a good thing. Is he for real?

Good question. I'm certain that people like him would not mind all those "enterprise level" nodes being run on a single datacenter as well. There were even people saying that non-mining nodes don't matter at all.

Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.

Indeed. Without decentralization, Bitcoin is nothing. This is why we need to work to retain as much of it as possible.

As long as them commercial ph0rks fails, bitcoin is pretty much decentralized.

[johnyj]

The current things in Venezuela does not sounds so good, because fiat money is a great way to tax the population, if bitcoin rises then that ability to tax the population will be threatened, I just don't see how bitcoin can pass that line without being heavily restricted

Bitcoin has already risen, several times. Governments can't tax it. Any more questions, Johny?

That's the problem. QE added money supply by 500%, that's a 500% tax on everybody who uses USD, it is a super fat gain. How could they give up that power. So far they let bitcoin run because its scale is a pocket change comparing to their money printing

Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.

You can't play this "hide-from-your-parents" game forever if you want it to go mainstream. For shady purposes there are thousands of alt-coins. Government ultimately have control over the internet infrastructure, you can not build internet backbone without the regulation of the government. Does it really matter your traffic goes through private line or enterprise line?

An extreme case is that Jeff wanted to launch satellite to run bitcoin nodes. Still, those satellites are regulated by the corresponding government agencies

[hdbuck]

The current things in Venezuela does not sounds so good, because fiat money is a great way to tax the population, if bitcoin rises then that ability to tax the population will be threatened, I just don't see how bitcoin can pass that line without being heavily restricted

Bitcoin has already risen, several times. Governments can't tax it. Any more questions, Johny?

That's the problem. QE added money supply by 500%, that's a 500% tax on everybody who uses USD, it is a super fat gain. How could they give up that power. So far they let bitcoin run because its scale is a pocket change comparing to their money printing

Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.

You can't play this "hide-from-your-parents" game forever if you want it to go mainstream. For shady purposes there are thousands of alt-coins. Government ultimately have control over the internet infrastructure, you can not build internet backbone without the regulation of the government. Does it really matter your traffic goes through private line or enterprise line?

An extreme case is that Jeff wanted to launch satellite to run bitcoin nodes. Still, those satellites are regulated by the corresponding government

Yawn, mainstream dgaf about Privacy, monetary policy and even less cryptography.

If you want mainstream get back on facebook.

But you can always fork off with your mainstream man in the middle corporations and play the proselytic card ad eternum, vote to fork more because the first one was not enough to save africa.

Talking about a friggin shitcoin wannabe. You and all your CEOs are irrelevant and powerless, bitcoin unaffected by your mainstreameries.

[brg444]

when did johnyj sell his account