ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[adamstgBit]

that solves the problem for miners, but what about the users?

i guess i misunderstood.

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

Adam, you were trying to say that hard forks were easier to implement than soft forks, only a post or two ago. What changed?

hmmm i said HF might be preferable not easier.

[1715024238]

1715024238

[1715024238]

1715024238

[1715024238]

1715024238

[1715024238]

1715024238

[1715024238]

1715024238

[JayJuanGee]

contentious HF's aren't evil, and implemented with 75% tigger + grace period they are hardly contentious. its silly to think everyone will agree on all changes, and its even sillier to not implement a change that the supermajority want to see. HF might actually be favourable over softforks, poeple who run machines which secur people's money have a responsibility to run a well oiled machine. A few SF later and now nodes on the network might start to have undefined/different behaviours, this will complicate things and hinder future developments.
we will see this first hand with segwit. the effective block size incress might not be be so effective.
one day Core will require a HF for some new thing they want to add...

If you really think about what you are saying Adam, you should come to the opposite conclusion.  We don't want people fucking with our money and to be able to change bitcoin so easily.

Currently bitcoin is secure, and we want it to be very difficult to change.  If you believe that you want it to be able to change easy, then you have been taken for a ride by people who really want to undermine bitcoin (possibly unwittingly). 


The various upcoming changes for bitcoin are going to be incremental, good and keep bitcoin secure with people's money.  For everything else, there's visa.  hahahahahahaha   
 

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

Maybe I am being too random, but to me, it seems that 75% is way too easy to accomplish change, and 25% is way too many people to leave discontent in the event that there is a change.

I don't know what the numbers should be exactly, but 90% or 95% seems much more reasonable, especially when we are dealing with decentralized money / assets that are potentially worth billions and some day (hopefully soon) trillions of dollars.

[BitUsher]

where do you get that getting 75% hashing power to agree to a change is easy?
its obviously proving to be very very hard.

isn't it easier to introduce a SF??

Adam, you were trying to say that hard forks were easier to implement than soft forks, only a post or two ago. What changed?

hmmm i said HF might be preferable not easier.

Translation: HF are preferable when it suits my personal needs or opinions regardless if it alienates a large portion of the Bitcoin community. Of course I would feel much different about HFs if they involved any issues I disagreed with. I am sure a lot of classic folks would be complaining about a 75% threshold for any change they disagreed with.


This is as opposed to the sentiments of many Core developers who feel that we should only implement HF's if it included a super majority and 75% isn't even close to it.

[Lauda]

Translation: HF are preferable when it suits my personal needs or opinions regardless if it alienates a large portion of the Bitcoin community. Of course I would feel much different about HFs if they involved any issues I disagreed with. I am sure a lot of classic folks would be complaining about a 75% threshold for any change they disagreed with.
This is as opposed to the sentiments of many Core developers who feel that we should only implement HF's if it included a super majority and 75% isn't even close to it.

Additionally, a grace period of 28 days is very problematic. This is because once a certain threshold has been met, it only symbolizes the support of the miners. There is no way of knowing what percentage of other entities has upgraded. Such a low grace period would definitely result in chaos once the HF occurs (especially if a good portion of people are left behind). Core developers know this, both Gavin and Garzik know this. Garzik disagrees with Gavin and recommends a minimum grace period of 3 to 6 months. Gavin is going against everyone on this one.

[johnyj]

Softfork is also 75% trigger condition and the new segwit softfork method demonstrated that you can change anything (including 21m coin supply) with softfork without the consent of nodes, so this method can be considered an attack on nodes, should be forbidden in bitcoin. Using code to manipulate node is a terrible idea, especially when that code is not well discussed and understood

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/segregated-witness-sotf-fork-segwit-pros-and-cons.986/

[BitUsher]

Softfork is also 75% trigger condition and the new segwit softfork method demonstrated that you can change anything (including 21m coin supply) with softfork without the consent of nodes, so this method can be considered an attack on nodes, should be forbidden in bitcoin. Using code to manipulate node is a terrible idea, especially when that code is not well discussed and understood

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/segregated-witness-sotf-fork-segwit-pros-and-cons.986/

You are not making a distinction between activation(75%) and enforcement (95%) within a soft fork which is different than with HF's and Segwit is planned to be released with versionbits anyways which requires 95 % for both.

Are you unaware of this or spreading FUD?

[gmaxwell]

75% isn't even close to it.

Especially when you realize that people connected to classic are demanding not "75% of users" or "75% of bitcoin ownership" but 75% hashpower, the last of which could just be a couple people.

Softfork is also 75% trigger condition

That isn't true. A long time ago they were done with hashrate thresholds that low and it was problematic. More recent ones have been 95% hashrate.

and the new segwit softfork method demonstrated that you can change anything (including 21m coin supply)

That is also not true. You could create some kind of colored coin and try to convince people to accept it as "bitcoin" even without any soft-fork, but no soft-fork can increase the supply of actual Bitcoins.

[BitUsher]

and the new segwit softfork method demonstrated that you can change anything (including 21m coin supply)

That is also not true. You could create some kind of colored coin and try to convince people to accept it as "bitcoin" even without any soft-fork, but no soft-fork can increase the supply of actual Bitcoins.

johnyj is likely confusing softforks with the nuclear option of soft-served HF's. It is indeed difficult to distinguish between ignorance and those deliberately spreading misinformation. One has to wonder though, when individuals need to repeatedly be corrected. Perhaps many are genuine and merely need to believe in their conspiracy theories and half truths to fit their narrative .

[adamstgBit]

I can't wait to see what bitcoin looks like a year from now
It will be quite interesting to watch the second layer take shape.
I disagree with the majority will to change the status quo by such a degree, but i can't help but be curious as to how it will all unfold.
I believe both schools of thought have merit and its hard to say which is best, in anycase either direction is better than simply doing nothing.

[BitUsher]

I believe both schools of thought have merit and its hard to say which is best, in anycase either direction is better than simply doing nothing.

I just read the thread Johnny J posted above regarding Segwit and you make it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind by recommending people to :

just stop using core and you'll be fine.

spreading more false conspiracy theories :

infact they are counting on this problem to make LN and sidechain project more profitable.

And have indeed made up your mind regarding which course is best -

if your looking to improve bitcoin scaling segwit is NOT ideal or in anyway better

considering all the red text below the pro "segwit is a softfork".... that is a BS reason.

and content spreading false conspiracy theories that assume ill will with core-

devs seem fine writing bad code simply so they can communicate half truths to the community and get there way.

Than you have the nerve to come here and try and appear to be neutral or impartial. So what is it , did you pull a 180 within a week or do you have a split personality?

You should probably just leave and hang out on the other forum , because we can't take anything coming from you as genuine anymore. Your credibility is shot.

[bargainbin]

Libertarian Paradise...

[adamstgBit]

Than you have the nerve to come here and try and appear to be neutral or impartial. So what is it , did you pull a 180 within a week or do you have a split personality?

i can be reasoned with if thats what you mean.
but i'm not neutral...
i do believe both directions have merit, but i favor big blocks.
the more i talk about it the less i feel strongly about either direction.
I plan to yield to majority, but thats hardly a reason to not debate the topic from my prefered point of view.

[Carlton Banks]

It is indeed difficult to distinguish between ignorance and those deliberately spreading misinformation. One has to wonder though, when individuals need to repeatedly be corrected. Perhaps many are genuine and merely need to believe in their conspiracy theories and half truths to fit their narrative .

If one were to break into the personal laptops of the various Bitcoin Judas'es out there (Hearn, Andresen, Garzik etc, hi guys ), I wonder which sock puppet bitcointalk.org accounts would turn out to be them? It's a pretty pathetic way to commandeer a p2p network, but when the goal is ignoble, I guess the means need be similarly so.


Are you a Bitcoin Judas (not BitUsher, for the hard of thinking) shilling with "idiot weirdo" personas on bitcointalk? Lol @ you, if so. Nice life you got there.  

[hv_]

I also do not fully understand why core has this HF fear, but this interview with Eric Lombrozo is some really good one and tends me into the mood: yes, core really has the right road map yet (still hoping they could do the size adjustment before or with SW)

Just watch that FULLY, since also all that Smart Comtracts hype and ETH paradoxis are scratched in!

http://youtu.be/DJdS-9hVwck

Thanks also Lauda for the endless patiens here but also to Adam for fighting for the poor masses.

Hope all comes to good in the end and the nedded (code) complexity in it is tested well and BUGFREE...

[JayJuanGee]

I can't wait to see what bitcoin looks like a year from now
It will be quite interesting to watch the second layer take shape.
I disagree with the majority will to change the status quo by such a degree, but i can't help but be curious as to how it will all unfold.
I believe both schools of thought have merit and its hard to say which is best, in anycase either direction is better than simply doing nothing.

Sometimes it is better to do nothing..... .especially when dealing with money/assets and development systems... so I would not rush into the belief that "something has to be done"

On the other hand, it appears in the case of bitcoin, a lot of things are coming into play within this next year, so any perception that bitcoin is stagnant and "things are not happening fast enough" serves as a line of propaganda rather than a reflection of this truly dynamic and innovative space...

For example, we have a lot of developers working on a lot of ideas in the bitcoin space, and some of those developers are working in alt coin space with eyes upon connecting such innovations into bitcoin.   Surely a large majority of such bitcoin related developers prefer to have changes come about incrementally and somewhat predictably.. rather than potential changes for the mere sake of changes.... ... and no matter what, even if seg wit were the only implementation to occur this coming year (which it is not), that change in itself is going to very likely cause a lot of innovation, adaptation, further development and wait and see concerning currently unknown innovative opportunitiies and possibilities.

I share your curiosity about the exciting times still ahead in the very near future.

[JayJuanGee]

I believe both schools of thought have merit and its hard to say which is best, in anycase either direction is better than simply doing nothing.

I just read the thread Johnny J posted above regarding Segwit and you make it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind by recommending people to :

just stop using core and you'll be fine.

spreading more false conspiracy theories :

infact they are counting on this problem to make LN and sidechain project more profitable.

And have indeed made up your mind regarding which course is best -

if your looking to improve bitcoin scaling segwit is NOT ideal or in anyway better

considering all the red text below the pro "segwit is a softfork".... that is a BS reason.

and content spreading false conspiracy theories that assume ill will with core-

devs seem fine writing bad code simply so they can communicate half truths to the community and get there way.

Than you have the nerve to come here and try and appear to be neutral or impartial. So what is it , did you pull a 180 within a week or do you have a split personality?

You should probably just leave and hang out on the other forum , because we can't take anything coming from you as genuine anymore. Your credibility is shot.

You are correct... sometimes Adam seems to be all over the place......

[adamstgBit]

Maybe I am being too random, but to me, it seems that 75% is way too easy to accomplish change, and 25% is way too many people to leave discontent in the event that there is a change.

I don't know what the numbers should be exactly, but 90% or 95% seems much more reasonable, especially when we are dealing with decentralized money / assets that are potentially worth billions and some day (hopefully soon) trillions of dollars.

just because 25% prefer one direction over the other doesn't mean they will fork off because the vote didnt go there way.
95% hashing power all voting for 1 option over an other means the that option is FAR superior.
i dont think segwit will be able to achieve this 95%. ( even if they count all non-voting hashing power as segwit votes )
but we'll see...

[BitUsher]

Than you have the nerve to come here and try and appear to be neutral or impartial. So what is it , did you pull a 180 within a week or do you have a split personality?

i can be reasoned with if thats what you mean.
but i'm not neutral...
i do believe both directions have merit, but i favor big blocks.
the more i talk about it the less i feel strongly about either direction.
I plan to yield to majority, but thats hardly a reason to not debate the topic from my prefered point of view.

I wrote a long response but decided not to publish it as that would add more fuel to the fire. Others can read the other thread for themselves and clearly see two completely different people.

[adamstgBit]

You are correct... sometimes Adam seems to be all over the place......

being opened minded and willing to be a blacksheep, does that to you.
core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?
not sure, but i'm willing to entertain the idea, and throw out crazy actuations to get some reactions.
in the heat of the moment ( getting banned from bitcointalk.org, and talking to the bitco.in ), i may has said some nutty stuff.

[JayJuanGee]

Maybe I am being too random, but to me, it seems that 75% is way too easy to accomplish change, and 25% is way too many people to leave discontent in the event that there is a change.

I don't know what the numbers should be exactly, but 90% or 95% seems much more reasonable, especially when we are dealing with decentralized money / assets that are potentially worth billions and some day (hopefully soon) trillions of dollars.

just because 25% prefer one direction over the other doesn't mean they will fork off because the vote didnt go there way.
95% hashing power all voting for 1 option over an other means the that option is FAR superior.
i dont think segwit will be able to achieve this 95%. ( even if they count all non-voting hashing power as segwit votes )
but we'll see...

I suppose that there are a variety of ways to look at the situation... but I like to think about it as if the status quo bitcoin is going to trudge on no matter what.  If any group wants to change the system, then they need to achieve overwhelming consensus, otherwise the old system just keeps going as it is.... Accordingly, it seems to be much better, especially, when dealing with finances and a lot of people potentially investing into the system to error on the side of a higher level of consensus (in order to make a change) than to have a lower level of consensus. 

Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out. 

I personally believe that segwit will achieve the necessary level of consensus, but I agree with you also that the future is not known, so we will have to see how the whole situation plays out exactly.