ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[thejaytiesto]

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

[hdbuck]

Weren't you unsuccessfully attempting to spread SegWit FUD earlier Adam? Why do all you bitco.in trolls feel the need to come here at all?

SegWit FUD  OR   trying to come to a list of pros and cons devoid of misconception?

we come here to let your opinions be known
if it wasn't for us, classic would appear to have no support.

do you want me to give it up?

lol, i assure you your opinions are known (yet still irrelevant )


but please do stay all you want, you idiots only make 1MB limit case stronger.

[adamstgBit]

Weren't you unsuccessfully attempting to spread SegWit FUD earlier Adam? Why do all you bitco.in trolls feel the need to come here at all?

SegWit FUD  OR   trying to come to a list of pros and cons devoid of misconception?

we come here to let your opinions be known
if it wasn't for us, classic would appear to have no support.

do you want me to give it up?

lol, i assure you your opinions are known (yet still irrelevant )


but please do stay all you want, you idiots only make 1MB limit case stronger.

you do realize you are calling a lot of respected people idiots...

i'm almost done here don't worry, you can push the your 1MB forever msg onto all the newbies unchallenged.

[adamstgBit]

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

segwit is divine intervention.
it will deliver the blockchain from unwanted strain.
the gods said " let there be segwit!! " and then there was lightning, and the loud clap of thunder confirmed it.

[AlexGR]

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

There is quite a big and obvious con: Segwit is untested code, meaning it could open up new attack vectors if the devs aren't EXTREMELY THOROUGH in its design and deployment. They need to think like attackers, trying to figure out all the possible attack or disruption vectors and then make sure it all works ok.

The task of deploying a bug-free system is not a small one, and it rarely gets done, yet this is precisely what is required in this case.

[thejaytiesto]

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

There is quite a big and obvious con: Segwit is untested code, meaning it could open up new attack vectors if the devs aren't EXTREMELY THOROUGH in its design and deployment. They need to think like attackers, trying to figure out all the possible attack or disruption vectors and then make sure it all works ok.

The task of deploying a bug-free system is not a small one, and it rarely gets done, yet this is precisely what is required in this case.

Untested? They have done endless testing on testnet mode. Guess what is untested: Hardforking to 2MB. I can't believe you are ok with that, while saying Segwit (after being researched and tested for months) has more risks than an actual hardfork to raise the blocksize.
Even if there was something wrong when it goes live on the mainnet, it would always be way less of a problem than hard forking.
There will always be risks, the thing is doing the more conservative thing.

[hdbuck]

segwit has less risk because, tested or not, its opt-in soft fork.

and so you'd not be forced to use it, which i clearly wont, btw.

[Lauda]

There is quite a big and obvious con: Segwit is untested code, meaning it could open up new attack vectors if the devs aren't EXTREMELY THOROUGH in its design and deployment. They need to think like attackers, trying to figure out all the possible attack or disruption vectors and then make sure it all works ok.

Not sure whether shill or just uninformed/stupid. As of December 31, 2015 there has been a Segwit testnet called, segnet. There have been various versions of it and it is being thoroughly tested.

Guess what is untested: Hardforking to 2MB.

Aside from claims from 'personal' testing, it is pretty much untested indeed. 2 MB block size limit is unsafe, this is why Gavin added sigops limitations to it.

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

Because there aren't any. The only thing that I saw was complaints about complexity. However, these are usually hyperbolic and coming from people with limited or no knowledge in related areas.

[bargainbin]

This is great, means next Bitcoin rally won't have such weak hands hodling btc

this is anything but great.....
this is the beginning of the end poeple are losing faith.
before long the "problem" of too many TX happening on the bitcoin network, simply WONT BE A PROBLEM!
DOOM I TELL YOU, DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

ehehehehehe

Weren't you unsuccessfully attempting to spread SegWit FUD earlier Adam? Why do all you bitco.in trolls feel the need to come here at all?

Because this is a warm and friendly community?

[adamstgBit]

There is quite a big and obvious con: Segwit is untested code, meaning it could open up new attack vectors if the devs aren't EXTREMELY THOROUGH in its design and deployment. They need to think like attackers, trying to figure out all the possible attack or disruption vectors and then make sure it all works ok.

Not sure whether shill or just uninformed/stupid. As of December 31, 2015 there has been a Segwit testnet called, segnet. There have been various versions of it and it is being thoroughly tested.

yes we all heard segwit has passed the tests with flying colors

 

Guess what is untested: Hardforking to 2MB.

Aside from claims from 'personal' testing, it is pretty much untested indeed. 2 MB block size limit is unsafe, this is why Gavin added sigops limitations to it.

no one ever thought to ask dash who hardforks every 6 months weather or not its safe??

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

Because there aren't any. The only thing that I saw was complaints about complexity. However, these are usually hyperbolic and coming from people with limited or no knowledge in related areas.

i notice you said "usually" are there instances where the complexity concerns are warranted?

[AlexGR]

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

There is quite a big and obvious con: Segwit is untested code, meaning it could open up new attack vectors if the devs aren't EXTREMELY THOROUGH in its design and deployment. They need to think like attackers, trying to figure out all the possible attack or disruption vectors and then make sure it all works ok.

The task of deploying a bug-free system is not a small one, and it rarely gets done, yet this is precisely what is required in this case.

Untested? They have done endless testing on testnet mode.

Obviously it can't be tested on all possible attack scenarios or problems that may appear on the main chain. Stated another way, no amount of testing in testnet is enough for it to be considered "safe".

As for classic and contentious hard fork solutions, it's junk - we don't need to argue about that.

The worst enemy of core devs right now is a problematic segwit deployment. They can lose the game pretty fast if they fuck this up.

[conspirosphere.tk]

The worst enemy of core devs right now is a problematic segwit deployment. They can lose the game pretty fast if they fuck this up.

If the worst possible scenario is 1MBFOREVAH and leaving the holy Bitcoin source alone I can live with that.

[Lauda]

yes we all heard segwit has passed the tests with flying colors

This statement is a pretty good example of a view with limited knowledge. Since the testnet is designed for testing and finding flaws (which there are bound to be at least a handful), the whole point of it is not "passing" but finding as many bugs as possible.

no one ever thought to ask dash who hardforks every 6 months weather or not its safe??

Apples and oranges. The ecosystem revolving around Dash is very small in comparison to Bitcoin.

Mr. Antonopoulos do you agree with this statement?

What's the point of this question?

[thejaytiesto]

There aren't any realistic SegWit cons I could think off... no one of the cons listed seem like a real con to me. You don't lose anything of value with SegWit, all you gain is better capacity without the hassle of a hardfork, what's to complain about really?

There is quite a big and obvious con: Segwit is untested code, meaning it could open up new attack vectors if the devs aren't EXTREMELY THOROUGH in its design and deployment. They need to think like attackers, trying to figure out all the possible attack or disruption vectors and then make sure it all works ok.

The task of deploying a bug-free system is not a small one, and it rarely gets done, yet this is precisely what is required in this case.

Untested? They have done endless testing on testnet mode.

Obviously it can't be tested on all possible attack scenarios or problems that may appear on the main chain. Stated another way, no amount of testing in testnet is enough for it to be considered "safe".

As for classic and contentious hard fork solutions, it's junk - we don't need to argue about that.

The worst enemy of core devs right now is a problematic segwit deployment. They can lose the game pretty fast if they fuck this up.

Which is why they are taking so long to get it done. Might as well wait extra time and release it after reading the code and testing a million times before going full live, so you can't blame the Core devs for not acting up on the "community concerns", they are being cautious and working hard so let's wait for a while and see what happens.

[adamstgBit]

yes we all heard segwit has passed the tests with flying colors

This statement is a pretty good example of a view with limited knowledge. Since the testnet is designed for testing and finding flaws (which there are bound to be at least a handful), the whole point of it is not "passing" but finding as many bugs as possible.

so you admit segwit is an unproven tech. which has yet to function let alone be deemed unhackable.

no one ever thought to ask dash who hardforks every 6 months weather or not its safe??

Apples and oranges. The ecosystem revolving around Dash is very small in comparison to Bitcoin.

better than a segnet...

Mr. Antonopoulos do you agree with this statement?

What's the point of this question?

[/quote]
the question was formulated to dismiss your statement by making it appear as tho a well respected person would disagree with you.

give it up buddy, i am my trollishness level OVER 9000!!!!!!!
oh i'm sorry, dont ban me, ill just go now....

good day.

[Lauda]

so you admit segwit is an unproven tech. which has yet to function let alone be deemed unhackable.

This is a very stupid statement from you. To simplify I'm going to say no to both since obviously you lack comprehension skills and knowledge to go in depth.

better than a segnet...

No. It is a shitcoin.

the question was formulated to dismiss your statement by making it appear as tho a well respected person would disagree with you.

Another appeal to authority. What does respect have to do with knowledge in the revelant areas? Is Andreas a software engineer?

give it up buddy, i am my trollishness level OVER 9000!!!!!!!
oh i'm sorry, dont ban me, ill just go now....

Trolling is against the rules. You proceed to admit to trolling and request not to be banned. This does not make much sense.

[thejaytiesto]

Al those guys comparing Bitcoin to altcoins need to take a step back and think. We are talking about the most computing power ever on a network... no other system has ever seen something like this before, we are doing something unprecedented, caution is due, and the segwit approach (then later on a hardfork if needed) is way better.
If any altcoin suddenly got popular and had to deal with all of this, their devs would be going through an ever bigger headache.

[exstasie]

LOL trying to pump DASH in here

GTFO

[adamstgBit]

Al those guys comparing Bitcoin to altcoins need to take a step back and think. We are talking about the most computing power ever on a network... no other system has ever seen something like this before, we are doing something unprecedented, caution is due, and the segwit approach (then later on a hardfork if needed) is way better.
If any altcoin suddenly got popular and had to deal with all of this, their devs would be going through an ever bigger headache.

maybe their devs would simply bump block limit and allow for some node centralization?

will bitcoin be able to compete with datacentercoin? I dont think so...

because pools allows miners of all sizes to play on a leveled playing field, i dont think there will ever be "too much centralization"  that datacentercoin will have all the benefits bitcoin has with the addition of unprecedented capacity.

[Lauda]

maybe their devs would simply bump block limit and allow for some node centralization?

Inexperienced developers? Possibly.

will bitcoin be able to compete with datacentercoin? I dont think so...
because pools allows miners of all sizes to play on a leveled playing field, i dont think there will ever be "too much centralization"  that datacentercoin will have all the benefits bitcoin has with the addition of unprecedented capacity.

Nobody would give a damn about a centralized coin. Without decentralization you are just left with an inefficient network that is unable to process a large amount of transactions in comparison to the already established systems. Additionally it is worth saying that anyone who is willing to sacrifice some/all decentralization in order to accommodate more users (i.e. hoping for a higher price, ergo because of greed) is here for the wrong reasons.