ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[johnyj]

Similar to witness blocktree, you can just add another extended block tree called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block tree is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!

What you are suggesting is a softserve HF which differentiates from segwit's SF because with Segwit old, un-upgraded nodes will still follow consensus rules and can send and receive tx from segwit nodes, but with your suggestion the consensus rules would be broken and none of the new coins would be recognized or accepted by the old nodes.

It is witness block, not witness tree, check it again

Of course old nodes won't be able to see new coins, and new coins won't be able to sent to old addresses, but does that really matter if old nodes and new nodes have two different money supply? Like some of the people use both Euro and USD while others only accept one type

Why do you have added money supply while existing users can not do anything about it? That's the problem of soft fork. In a hard fork you would never have this possibility

Let me quote some text from Mike who hold the similar view:

Forwards compatibility defeats the entire purpose of running a node.

It’s easy to see why. XT/Core download and process every block from genesis day onwards because by doing this they are auditing the block chain. They add up every number, they check every signature. By the time the audit has finished, you can be sure that the ledger you’re using reflects application of the rules written into the software.

This is a key part of Bitcoin’s decentralisation: by using your own copy of the ledger that was calculated by your own computer, and then only accepting payments that are valid according to that ledger, you reinforce key economic policies like the inflation formula and the absence of double spending.

The idea is simple: nobody, not even a miner with majority hash power, can trick you into accepting money that violated these rules.

Or ……. can they?

And here’s the problem with soft forks.

In a soft fork, a protocol change is carefully constructed to essentially trick old nodes into believing that something is valid when it actually might not be.

[1715145187]

1715145187

[1715145187]

1715145187

[1715145187]

1715145187

[1715145187]

1715145187

[1715145187]

1715145187

[Lauda]

Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!

Even if that were a possibility, those would not be Bitcoin. You're being fed false information.

For the most part these are all intelligent people with well rounded interests and educations in many fields including economics. I would say the same for Garzik and Gavin and even Hearn.

I wouldn't.

If that was the real reason that Maxwell gave up his commit access, then that is too bad. 
Sometimes there is more going on behind the scenes that contributed to the giving up of something, so sometimes rationale that is explained may not be the full story or the most logical inference based on the totality of circumstances.

I'm certain that that isn't the only reason, but it was a contributing factor. The fact is, nothing has changed and the baseless propaganda might have just gotten worse.

[exstasie]

Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!

Valid outputs need to originate from valid coinbase transaction in valid block. Non-upgraded nodes will never confirm blocks containing tx that spend non-existent outputs ..... for the same reason they won't confirm blocks containing a 21million coin spend. Those transactions--and if mined, those blocks--are simply invalid, ignored, by old nodes. Miners don't even matter in this context. If they keep building on such a block, their chain will be forked off the network.

Unless, of course, node operators en masse uninstalled their node software and reinstalled software that recognized these outputs as valid. i.e. a hard fork.....

It does not matter what non-upgraded nodes do when majority of the blocks are 21block format

Miners don't matter in a hard fork. Some miners could collude to inflate the money supply, but that is no guarantee that anyone will care to transact on their network. They can just be ignored.

, e.g. original block + 21 block, those non-upgraded nodes will just receive empty original blocks (all the new transactions are in 21 blocks and their merkle root is hashed into the coinbase transaction of the original block) and they are forced to upgrade.

Sigh...

You're confusing transaction type (standard vs. non-standard) with validity. Using non-standard transactions can't hide the outputs from old nodes. They won't be "empty blocks"; they will be "blocks full of invalid transactions."

That's the whole point of soft fork: You can force all the original nodes out of the network since their miserable 5% hash rate will only mine one block every 200 minutes, and that block is not enough to process the transaction on original net

How would old nodes be forced off the network? You're very confused. Since no consensus rules would be broken--only restricted--the 5% are never forced off the network. Their problem is that they may include transactions in their blocks that are invalid under the new soft fork rules, and thus rejected by the network.

It does not surprise me that so many people blindly cheer for segwit soft fork while they don't understand what that means at all

It's pretty clear that you don't understand a damn thing about bitcoin.

https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness
This Dr. made some metaphor to explain segwit, but his example how transaction works is obviously wrong. So even a Dr. who is giving lecture about segwit does not understand how bitcoin transaction works (or intentionally give misleading information?), how could the rest of the people have any idea what it is?

I'm not clicking that link. I don't know who this "Dr." is or what relevance he has. But it seems like the burden is on you to explain exactly how he is wrong, rather than just stating it as truth.

People like you pretend to understand how bitcoin works, but fall flat on their face. And many more people than that don't even pretend to understand bitcoin. So your premise is stupid to begin with. How about developers? Well:

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

[Bergmann_Christoph]

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

Leo Wandesleb (Mycelium)

“Segregated Witness is not a block size increase, but a technical necessity to fix completely different issues, by also producing less load on the blockchain,” Wandersleb explained. “There is, however, a realistic chance that it will take a long while before it has an effect on total transaction throughput.”

“I believe that Bitcoin Core, committed to these values, should acknowledge that increasing the block size or other hard forks might possibly be necessary. Nothing more

Thomas Voegtlin (Electrum)

“It will be very easy to support transacting to Segregated Witness addresses,” Voegtlin explained. “But to really support Segregated Witness, we need to change address generation in the wallet, and the way transactions are signed. The first step will be to update the Electrum servers, in order to index Segregated Witness scripts – then to update the client. I can combine the server work with a more general update which I planned to do anyway. All in all, that will probably keep me busy for a few months

Aaron Voisine (Breadwallet)

However, Segregated Witness will only give us something like an 80 percent capacity increase, and hard forks take a long time to deploy. The hard fork needs to be readied, and roll-out started quickly after. While I’d prefer it if Bitcoin Core does that, it appears Bitcoin Classic is the leading option for deploying a hard fork. As such, we do support that project.”

Andreas Schildbach (BitcoinJ, Bitcoin Wallet for Android)

“When it comes to the block size topic, I think Segregated Witness is not a solution at all ...  think that in practice, actual usage will grow slower with Segregated Witness compared to a 2-megabyte hard fork increase, as it requires all wallets and services to upgrade"

“Blocks are full, and I don’t agree that a hard fork solution would be short notice. We’ve been discussing this issue for years now! I would prefer we roll out a hard fork,” he said.

[Lauda]

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

It doesn't really matter in this case. Segwit is far more superior than a 2 MB block size limit which solves nothing and adds additional limitations to the system (Gavin's BIP; in order to prevent attacks).

“Blocks are full, and I don’t agree that a hard fork solution would be short notice.

The grace period proposed by Gavin is a bad joke at best.

[BitUsher]

Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!

Valid outputs need to originate from valid coinbase transaction in valid block. Non-upgraded nodes will never confirm blocks containing tx that spend non-existent outputs ..... for the same reason they won't confirm blocks containing a 21million coin spend. Those transactions--and if mined, those blocks--are simply invalid, ignored, by old nodes. Miners don't even matter in this context. If they keep building on such a block, their chain will be forked off the network.

Unless, of course, node operators en masse uninstalled their node software and reinstalled software that recognized these outputs as valid. i.e. a hard fork.....

It does not matter what non-upgraded nodes do when majority of the blocks are 21block format

Miners don't matter in a hard fork. Some miners could collude to inflate the money supply, but that is no guarantee that anyone will care to transact on their network. They can just be ignored.

, e.g. original block + 21 block, those non-upgraded nodes will just receive empty original blocks (all the new transactions are in 21 blocks and their merkle root is hashed into the coinbase transaction of the original block) and they are forced to upgrade.

Sigh...

You're confusing transaction type (standard vs. non-standard) with validity. Using non-standard transactions can't hide the outputs from old nodes. They won't be "empty blocks"; they will be "blocks full of invalid transactions."

That's the whole point of soft fork: You can force all the original nodes out of the network since their miserable 5% hash rate will only mine one block every 200 minutes, and that block is not enough to process the transaction on original net

How would old nodes be forced off the network? You're very confused. Since no consensus rules would be broken--only restricted--the 5% are never forced off the network. Their problem is that they may include transactions in their blocks that are invalid under the new soft fork rules, and thus rejected by the network.

It does not surprise me that so many people blindly cheer for segwit soft fork while they don't understand what that means at all

It's pretty clear that you don't understand a damn thing about bitcoin.

https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness
This Dr. made some metaphor to explain segwit, but his example how transaction works is obviously wrong. So even a Dr. who is giving lecture about segwit does not understand how bitcoin transaction works (or intentionally give misleading information?), how could the rest of the people have any idea what it is?

I'm not clicking that link. I don't know who this "Dr." is or what relevance he has. But it seems like the burden is on you to explain exactly how he is wrong, rather than just stating it as truth.

People like you pretend to understand how bitcoin works, but fall flat on their face. And many more people than that don't even pretend to understand bitcoin. So your premise is stupid to begin with. How about developers? Well:

Well said , saved me time from refuting all the idiocy.

This does bring up an interesting attack vector and weakness of Segwit. The fact that it is more complicated allows the ignorant and misinformed and those who wish to deliberately spread confusion a better means of spreading FUD than a simpler change.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

It doesn't really matter in this case.

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

[hv_]

To me it all comes down to the HF risk & fear.

If BTC would have regular HFs as in some alts they are normal, the 2 MB was done a year ago, correct?

So with SW it looks fine do scale by a SF and this is just seen (and sold) as lower risky...

Since most here cannot evalue both, join the boat.

[hdbuck]

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

It doesn't really matter in this case.

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

The developers dont matter at all at this point.

Bitcoin will outlive us all anyway.

[Lauda]

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

To me it all comes down to the HF risk & fear.
If BTC would have regular HFs as in some alts they are normal, the 2 MB was done a year ago, correct?

The problem with Classic is that it uses Gavin's BIP which is fundamentally flawed and goes against everything that was learned over the years:
1) Low consensus threshold (causes network split 1/4 and 3/4).
2) Very short grace period (supports the split).
If he had properly designed it, there would probably be less "hostility" towards it.

[btcusury]

For the most part these are all intelligent people with well rounded interests and educations in many fields including economics. I would say the same for Garzik and Gavin and even Hearn.

I wouldn't.

Intelligent they are but "rounded interests"? More like boxed interests. Don't you think that that's the root of the problem, BitUsher? If we assume that they are acting out of self-interest and not being paid/bribed/threatened to push for a hardfork-mediated hostile network split, then then it must mean that their interests do not extend to understanding the problem created by central control over money. Gavin openly stated that his intention is to use Bitcoin as a better Paypal, and Hearn is now working for the banksters, and Garzik... well, just check his twitter to see where he's coming from (he seems to believe everything the MSM says).

This does bring up an interesting attack vector and weakness of Segwit. The fact that it is more complicated allows the ignorant and misinformed and those who wish to deliberately spread confusion a better means of spreading FUD than a simpler change.

Hahaha, good observation. Good thing the weakness is in human minds and not in the cryptography.

[exstasie]

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

Try reading the articles, not just the headlines

Leo Wandesleb (Mycelium)

“Segregated Witness is not a block size increase, but a technical necessity to fix completely different issues, by also producing less load on the blockchain,” Wandersleb explained. “There is, however, a realistic chance that it will take a long while before it has an effect on total transaction throughput.”

“I believe that Bitcoin Core, committed to these values, should acknowledge that increasing the block size or other hard forks might possibly be necessary. Nothing more

Thomas Voegtlin (Electrum)

“It will be very easy to support transacting to Segregated Witness addresses,” Voegtlin explained. “But to really support Segregated Witness, we need to change address generation in the wallet, and the way transactions are signed. The first step will be to update the Electrum servers, in order to index Segregated Witness scripts – then to update the client. I can combine the server work with a more general update which I planned to do anyway. All in all, that will probably keep me busy for a few months

Aaron Voisine (Breadwallet)

However, Segregated Witness will only give us something like an 80 percent capacity increase, and hard forks take a long time to deploy. The hard fork needs to be readied, and roll-out started quickly after. While I’d prefer it if Bitcoin Core does that, it appears Bitcoin Classic is the leading option for deploying a hard fork. As such, we do support that project.”

Perhaps you could pay attention to the subject at hand. johnyj's claim was that "Segwit is too complex".....the truth is that developers don't see it that way at all. Or did you not read the articles?

Idiot.

[adamstgBit]

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.
segwit is awesome and a necessary first step for getting the second layer going.
i fully agree with you, you can't  fully understand segwit and be against it.

[AlexGR]

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

[adamstgBit]

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

I think Satoshi would be for letting nakamoto consensus determine all future upgrades.

[JayJuanGee]

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

this is a ridiculous thing to have in your mind.

Surely, in a decentralized system, some people have more persuasive credibility than others, but in the end, it does not matter too much what one person wants - it is just part of the considerations to take into account regarding what to do...

We all already have information out there, and there are Satoshi - like people out there who have credible perspectives.  Merely because some people have been disingenuous and have tricked us with their intentions does not mean that there do not remain a lot of credible people working in the bitcoin space, and it is up to each one of us to determine which ones are more trustworthy than others and to do our best in deciding what we want to do on a personal level in lending our support in one direction or another (and maybe as we learn, we may chose to change our own personal direction, too).

[marcus_of_augustus]

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

relax, satoshi is cool with it.

[sickpig]

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit, could you please explain to me the reason why a discount of 75% is applied to signatures (witnesses) while computing block space limit? (serious question)

[marcus_of_augustus]

The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?

I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit, could you please explain to me the reason why a discount of 75% is applied to signatures (witnesses) while computing block space limit? (serious question)

the witness data (signatures) portion of a transaction usually makes up around 75% of the total transaction data size ... so by moving it out the main block and into a separate 'witness block' of data makes available approx. that much space in the main block for other data.

[Lauda]

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...
Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.

It doesn't matter at all. This is the classic appeal to authority that I've been seeing. Just because Satoshi invented Bitcoin that does not mean that he can show up today and "force" his opinion (i.e. it having more merit than the opinion of some other engineer). Don't forget that he had abandoned 'his' project.

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit

Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).