ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[xyzzy099]

Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead.  Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.

its only just begun

now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit.
obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB
with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner.

maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows...

if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT

It seems to me that if one group controls 94% of the hashpower, and another controls 6% of the hash power resulting in a stand-off, it is highly likely that the group with 94% would be much more able to (temporarily or permanently) expand their hash power to break the stalemate.

[1715079900]

1715079900

[1715079900]

1715079900

[drinksyourmilkshake]

Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead.  Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.

its only just begun

now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit.
obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB
with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner.

maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows...

if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT

>be a classicist, want 2 mb blocksize.
>possibility to go to 1.75 mb blocksize by embracing the seg life.
>would rather the blocksize stay at 1mb forever than embracing superior segwit.

It seems pretty obvious to me that some will switch to accept segwit softfork instead of waiting for something that will never happen.

[thejaytiesto]

It's over for Classic, we'll have Lightning Network sooner than most expect and new users will be using it without even realizing. All of the transactions will go through correctly, safely, cheap, instant, no one will remember the days of the idiocy of people wanting to run everything at protocol level even if that meant centralizing the core of Bitcoin (its nodes).

[adamstgBit]

Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead.  Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.

its only just begun

now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit.
obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB
with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner.

maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows...

if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT

It seems to me that if one group controls 94% of the hashpower, and another controls 6% of the hash power resulting in a stand-off, it is highly likely that the group with 94% would be much more likely to be able to (temporarily or permanently) expand their hash power to break the stalemate.

expensive but doable... nothing is stopping the other side from matching the incress in order to keep >5%

Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead.  Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.

its only just begun

now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit.
obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB
with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner.

maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows...

if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT

>be a classicist, want 2 mb blocksize.
>possibility to go to 1.75 mb blocksize by embracing the seg life.
>would rather the blocksize stay at 1mb forever than embracing superior segwit.

It seems pretty obvious to me that some will switch to accept segwit softfork instead of waiting for something that will never happen.

i guess that's likely, if it comes down to a stalemate ( veto power on both sides ) i guess some will switch simply to break the stalemate.

in anycase both sides agree to segwit, so it shouldn't be all that hard to get 95% miners onboard
 

side note: I think alot of hashing power is staying on Core because it seem controversial to "undermine the core devs". this most incorrect way of thinking needs to stop. competing implementation are perfectly valid and should be welcome. in a perfect world devs, all devs, should have no association with any one implementation, they simply all work on providing options. the network votes on these option without considering the devs "feelings".

[AlexGR]

side note: I think alot of hashing power is staying on Core because it seem controversial to "undermine the core devs". this most incorrect way of thinking needs to stop. competing implementation are perfectly valid and should be welcome.

1. This is not the web in which you can choose Safari, Mozilla or Chrom(e/ium) where these 3 programs all operate under the same web / http protocol.

2. The "competing implementations" in our case, is "your web sucks, I'll have my own web - along with my own browser".

3. Satoshi didn't even welcome ...compatible implementations, let alone competition of incompatible ones.


PS. The web evolves by something like a "...soft-forking" of new web clients and web servers who support new features like the HTML5 video player... Those running older browsers can access content without these features but not content with it (they'll have to revert to a flash player in this example). They can always upgrade to get access to newer features but the web is always the same. There are no two webs.

[adamstgBit]

side note: I think alot of hashing power is staying on Core because it seem controversial to "undermine the core devs". this most incorrect way of thinking needs to stop. competing implementation are perfectly valid and should be welcome.

1. This is not the web in which you can choose Safari, Mozilla or Chrom(e/ium) where these 3 programs all operate under the same web / http protocol.

2. The "competing implementations" in our case, is "your web sucks, I'll have my own web - along with my own browser".

3. Satoshi didn't even welcome ...compatible implementations, let alone competition of incompatible ones.


PS. The web evolves by something like a "...soft-forking" of new web clients and web servers who support new features like the HTML5 video player... Those running older browsers can access content without these features but not content with it (they'll have to revert to a flash player in this example). They can always upgrade to get access to newer features but the web is always the same. There are no two webs.

+1

i think its interesting to note tho that:
" your web sucks I'll have my own web - along with my own browser " is the general sentiment of 2015 -2016
" its about Bitcoin not bitcoin " everyone is building their own blockchains.

but soft forking and throwing layers on top, has allowed the web to scale remarkably well.
bitcoin will follow this model and will probably come out the winner.

my " HF are natural evolution " sentiment is probably wrong...

[BitUsher]

Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead.  Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.

its only just begun

now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit.
obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB
with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner.

maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows...

if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT

It seems to me that if one group controls 94% of the hashpower, and another controls 6% of the hash power resulting in a stand-off, it is highly likely that the group with 94% would be much more likely to be able to (temporarily or permanently) expand their hash power to break the stalemate.

expensive but doable... nothing is stopping the other side from matching the incress in order to keep >5%

It is a more likely a scenario that more classic miners will defect as 95% is approached. It would be quite humurous indeed if classic tries to stonewall segwit and show themselves to be hypocrites demanding immediate capacity and overall not being opposed to segwit in principle for the most part and than delay these 2 things.

[hdbuck]

Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead.  Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.

its only just begun

now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit.
obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB
with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner.

maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows...

if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT

It seems to me that if one group controls 94% of the hashpower, and another controls 6% of the hash power resulting in a stand-off, it is highly likely that the group with 94% would be much more likely to be able to (temporarily or permanently) expand their hash power to break the stalemate.

expensive but doable... nothing is stopping the other side from matching the incress in order to keep >5%

It is a more likely a scenario that more classic miners will defect as 95% is approached. It would be quite humurous indeed if classic tries to stonewall segwit and show themselves to be hypocrites demanding immediate capacity and overall not being opposed to segwit in principle for the most part and than delay these 2 things.

whatver, i like the status quo, decentralized system much making sure teh rules are set in stone...

[RealBitcoin]

whatver, i like the status quo, decentralized system much making sure teh rules are set in stone...

Status quo is always in the middle of the bell curve.

Bitcoin's current features are the best possible ones known, and the most secure to our current knowledge.

Why would we wanna give it up for some progressive crap like 'classic' ?  So yes in this sense the status quo is good.

[broseph]

whatver, i like the status quo, decentralized system much making sure teh rules are set in stone...

Status quo is always in the middle of the bell curve.

Bitcoin's current features are the best possible ones known, and the most secure to our current knowledge.

Why would we wanna give it up for some progressive crap like 'classic' ?  So yes in this sense the status quo is good.

Yeah, if people wanted classic then we would have it by now, the market has spoken.

[hdbuck]

whatver, i like the status quo, decentralized system much making sure teh rules are set in stone...

Status quo is always in the middle of the bell curve.

Bitcoin's current features are the best possible ones known, and the most secure to our current knowledge.

Why would we wanna give it up for some progressive crap like 'classic' ?  So yes in this sense the status quo is good.

sure, but i wouldnt mind classic derps blocking segwit et al.

bitcoin is and that is enough.

you can block each other on and on in circle and as far as im concerned that would be amazingly making bitcoin's resiliency case vs. politcal money that changes with the wind.

have fun anyway

[exstasie]

Did this not answer your question?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14367997#msg14367997

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.

Nope.

Because despite the witness segregation in a separate block my full node will receive both txs base data and witness data to perform full validation.

And because my node will have to relaying both base data and witness data to any other full node to let them perform full validation.

So of the 3 main costs of operating a node RAM/CPU, bandwidth and storage the witness segregation will let me save in terms of storage and bandwidth only once I will decide to discard the witness part of a block, or "witness block" if you will.

This has a disadvantage though, namely I could not fully participating to the p2p bitcoin network anymore because I can't provide blocks data to new nodes once I delete the witness part.

Technically the quote from marcus_of_augustus is true since witness data is being segregated outside of the block.

A system of fully and partially validating nodes (the latter of which rely on Segwit nodes and miners to validate signature chain) is superior to one that would otherwise force those partially validating nodes off the network. Segwit's backward compatibility prevents that, and further enables fraud proofs to more fully secure SPV clients. If the choices are between "no node" and "transaction-only validating node and/or more secure SPV node" then I think the choice is clear.

Inability to bootstrap new nodes is true of any pruning mechanism; that doesn't make pruning a bad feature. It increases the options for validating nodes who must, or want to, throttle resource usage.

[exstasie]

This is not the web in which you can choose Safari, Mozilla or Chrom(e/ium) where these 3 programs all operate under the same web / http protocol.

...

They can always upgrade to get access to newer features but the web is always the same. There are no two webs.

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

[adamstgBit]

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

[Bergmann_Christoph]

A system of fully and partially validating nodes (the latter of which rely on Segwit nodes and miners to validate signature chain) is superior to one that would otherwise force those partially validating nodes off the network.

Maybe a system that forces partially validating nodes to upgrade to be fully validating nodes?

The ratio is more like

70(full)  + 30(partly) vs 80(full)

Hard to decide what's better.

[AlexGR]

This is not the web in which you can choose Safari, Mozilla or Chrom(e/ium) where these 3 programs all operate under the same web / http protocol.

...

They can always upgrade to get access to newer features but the web is always the same. There are no two webs.

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

I'm just giving an example where the different software for bitcoin is not the same as having different software for the web. Obviously there is no ledger as far as the web is concerned. The web is not a blockchain.

[iCEBREAKER]

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

[adamstgBit]

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

[facepalm]

well its a protocol they all adhere to which is very hard to HF...
for the purposes of the analogy it fits.

[exstasie]

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

No. Where is the "consensus ledger?"

This is actually quite relevant to the Lightning Network. In the "bitcoin=internet" analogy, the core broadcast network (the blockchain) is equivalent to the Internet layer (IPv4)--the layer that routes most internet traffic. HTTP is part of the Application layer, which is a layer built on top of IPv4 due to IPv4's limited capacities for proper data delivery, sequencing and integrity.

[adamstgBit]

Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

No. Where is the "consensus ledger?"

This is actually quite relevant to the Lightning Network. In the "bitcoin=internet" analogy, the core broadcast network (the blockchain) is equivalent to the Internet layer (IPv4)--the layer that routes most internet traffic. HTTP is part of the Application layer, which is a layer built on top of IPv4 due to IPv4's limited capacities for proper data delivery, sequencing and integrity.

i think the point was that the internet was scaled by adding layers and soft forking
the TCP/IP layer has stay the same, but with the HTTP layer thrown onto and later another layer ( JS / CSS / Flash etc. )
we have managed to get scale the internet without HardForking the underlying protocol TCP/IP
its an analogy that isn't perfect but isn't have bad...