ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Lauda]

gmax is going to have to do thing like AMA's and such, to really sell the idea.

He doesn't have to do anything.

segwit is complex, some miners won't accept to run somthing they dont understand.

Everything is complex for those without knowledge.

its hardly a softfork

It is a soft fork.

the point is if i actually knew the details i wouldn't make false assumptions...

Making assumptions when one doesn't have adequate knowledge is bad practice to begin with.

its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.

Judging by the comments I read daily here.....I think not.

I concur.

[johnyj]

since it created a virtual bitcoin node which looks exactly like bitcoin node and talk to bitcoin nodes, and the old network thought that they are talking to a real bitcoin node while in reality they are not.

No. You just sound like a raving lunatic now.

So a segwit node can break any rules while old nodes still believes they are talking to a normal old node

Sorry but no. You're still pushing jstolfi's BS which was disproven long ago. A Segwit node cannot push invalid transactions which are then confirmed (anyone can push invalid transactions which are not confirmed). They cannot just "break any rules" and you haven't demonstrated how they can. At all.

A segwit  transaction is "anyonecanspend" type of transaction in the view of old nodes, but totally different in the view of segwit nodes, that is an attack trying to fool the old nodes. And if I'm a malicious node, I made an invalid segwit transaction with invalid signature data, it will be rejected by segwit nodes, but accepted by old nodes, since old nodes see it as "anyonecanspend" transaction without signature, they can not validate it

It seems you are not capable of rational discussion of the topic, think this way: Segwit is your god, pray 2 times a day to it

[btcusury]

Meh that "scaling" agitprop meme is getting tiring. How come you even fall for it.

Also, whether the DS committed uᴉoɔʇᴉq or not, bitcoiners are on the winning side.

The farce the illegitimate financial world has become will go down.

Hide your kids, hide your wives.. and get some moondollars.

Yup (@ bolded), I'm quite fond of the scenario that the deepest of deep state actors were Satoshi, not "because 1 world currency", but "because cryptocurrency would always win in the long term anyway". They have a habit of leading predictable revolutions themselves, such that they can position themselves to collect any spoils of the redistribution. Plus ca change.

I'm quite fond of that scenario too, but I just can't see how they expected to benefit... The only scenario I can think of is a hidden ability of using quantum computing to break the system at some point. Positioning themselves away from central banking (control over economies and politicians and media) into hoping that a decentralized system would go as predicted... with the variable of crypto development that would spring out of the original Bitcoin project? I think we like to think of "them" ("deep state" / dark budget MIC / breakaway civilization) as more clever and "powerful" than they really are (which itself is something "they" want).

Decentralization undoes their ability to control, it's that simple. They would've had no reason to invent it.

[gmaxwell]

Gmaxwell R3KT - this criticism below seems reasonable and implies you have no clue how in PGP windows works, how about explaining this?

That document is a thoroughly confused rant written by some fraudster.

What the "paper" is pointing out is that although the hash preference list or "8 2 9 10 11" and the other metadata were not conceived of or implemented until a year after the claimed date (as I pointed out); it was possible, by a long series of complex manual commands to manually override the preferences and punch in whatever ones you wanted, even the 'future' ones.

You may note that it take great care to provide no citation to my actual comments, in fact it quotes me but uses an image for the text-- making it more difficult to even search for it. Allow me:

"The suspect keys claim to be October 2008; the commit was July 2009. So no, not without a time machine. It's possible that the settings could have been locally overridden to coincidentally the same defaults as now." https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w027x/dr_craig_steven_wright_alleged_satoshi_by_wired/cxsm1yo?context=2

-- so the whole theory that this "paper" writes for pages and pages as if it were some great concealment on my part is a possibility I explicitly pointed out.

The problem with it is that it requires the user to have executed a long series of complex commands to override the preferences and have to have guessed the exact selection and ordering of the preferences that wouldn't be written for a year-- when if they preferred a particular cypher they would more likely have taken the existing "2 8 3" and stuck their choice on the front.  Not only that, but they would have had to have done so on the same day that they created a totally ordinary key and published it, yet this other key-- which looks exactly like one created with post-2009 software and entirely unlike the well known one-- was provided to no one for years, not placed on public key servers and until now and otherwise has no evidence of its prior existence. Come on, give me a break.

It's "possible", a fact a pointed out explicitly back then, but this possibility thoroughly fails Occam's razor-- especially on top of the evidence presented by others: Archive.org showed the subtle "hint dropping" added in blog entries was back-dated, added in 2013, SGI reported that the published letter on their letterhead was fake, the lack of cogent technical commentary from that party, etc.

Bringing it back on topic, I'd say that it's surprising that all these Bitcoin Classic folks believe such tripe, but in the context of all the other incompetent nonsense they believe, it doesn't seem so surprising.

[btcusury]

Bringing it back on topic, I'd say that it's surprising that all these Bitcoin Classic folks believe such tripe, but in the context of all the other incompetent nonsense they believe, it doesn't seem so surprising.

It's too technical for most people to understand, and people prefer the title of "Chief Scientist" over "Staff".

[Adrian-x]

Bringing it back on topic, I'd say that it's surprising that all these Bitcoin Classic folks believe such tripe, but in the context of all the other incompetent nonsense they believe, it doesn't seem so surprising.

It's too technical for most people to understand, and people prefer the title of "Chief Scientist" over "Staff".

The Irony is no one give a hoot about a title, but money should be easy to understand, whose the target market if it's more complicated than our existing fiat system.

[Adrian-x]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

If this stuff is so simple why don't you explain it. If it's too complicated to explain why are you intentional complicating Bitcoin, its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.

Here, Greg let me help you bring this back on topic. Can you explain SegWit to a lay person who's been using bitcoin following developments and mining, and since Early 2011?  

Quoting you here" Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time" and I'm pointing out its not clearing up any of the FUD around SegWits.

could you please explain it from a high level instead of insulting people.

[hdbuck]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

If this stuff is so simple why don't you explain it. If it's too complicated to explain why are you intentional complicating Bitcoin, its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.

Here, Greg let me help you bring this back on topic. Can you explain SegWit to a lay person who's been using bitcoin following developments and mining, and since Early 2011? 

Quoting you here" Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time" and I'm pointing out its not clearing up any of the FUD around SegWits.

could you please explain it from a high level instead of insulting people.

[brg444]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

If this stuff is so simple why don't you explain it. If it's too complicated to explain why are you intentional complicating Bitcoin, its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.

Here, Greg let me help you bring this back on topic. Can you explain SegWit to a lay person who's been using bitcoin following developments and mining, and since Early 2011?  

Quoting you here" Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time" and I'm pointing out its not clearing up any of the FUD around SegWits.

could you please explain it from a high level instead of insulting people.

The material is out there for any person with genuine interest to learn. Your gang of troll is being intentionally obtuse

[Adrian-x]

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

It would be valid, of course. Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time.

If this stuff is so simple why don't you explain it. If it's too complicated to explain why are you intentional complicating Bitcoin, its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.

Here, Greg let me help you bring this back on topic. Can you explain SegWit to a lay person who's been using bitcoin following developments and mining, and since Early 2011?  

Quoting you here" Perhaps you should consider posting less and studying more? -- not trying to insult, but without the basics you're wasting people's time" and I'm pointing out its not clearing up any of the FUD around SegWits.

could you please explain it from a high level instead of insulting people.

The material is out there for any person with genuine interest to learn. Your gang of troll is being intentionally obtuse

Can you point me to it? I'm looking for a high level overview of the nuts and bolts- pros and cons? not some marketing spin.

[chek2fire]

I think tha Classic movement is fading day after day.

[iCEBREAKER]

I think tha Classic movement is fading day after day.

Classic's last hope died when the Buttcoiners working among the Gavinistas decided to block segwit using 5% of the hashrate.

Classic couldn't survive the stunning hypocrisy of whining about delays in a tps bump, then suddenly committing to prolonging that delay.

[adamstgBit]

gmax is going to have to do thing like AMA's and such, to really sell the idea.

He doesn't have to do anything.

its going to be interesting to see how the network reacts to segwit being released...

i wonder how much effort it will take to get that 95% they want

[broseph]

gmax is going to have to do thing like AMA's and such, to really sell the idea.

He doesn't have to do anything.

its going to be interesting to see how the network reacts to segwit being released...

i wonder how much effort it will take to get that 95% they want

I imagine they'll try hard and succeed for some weeks but eventually they'll give in.  Why would those that want any increase at all block segwit once it's out there?  Much of the support for Classic will just accept segwit size increase and continue lobbying for another one.

[marcus_of_augustus]

gmax is going to have to do thing like AMA's and such, to really sell the idea.

He doesn't have to do anything.

its going to be interesting to see how the network reacts to segwit being released...

i wonder how much effort it will take to get that 95% they want

I imagine they'll try hard and succeed for some weeks but eventually they'll give in.  Why would those that want any increase at all block segwit once it's out there?  Much of the support for Classic will just accept segwit size increase and continue lobbying for another one.

I don't think many of the people running classic nodes will know how to upgrade to segwitcore and it doesn't seem like classic will merge it at this stage.

[Lauda]

its going to be interesting to see how the network reacts to segwit being released...
i wonder how much effort it will take to get that 95% they want

I don't think it was specifically stated (yet?) that it would be at 95%. People only assume this as it was used in the past.

Much of the support for Classic will just accept segwit size increase and continue lobbying for another one.

This is one of the problems with increasing the block size, people (due to lack of knowledge) are going to continue cheering for another increase pretty soon even if that one would effectively cause huge problems. Just because we can do it now (after segwit), it doesn't mean that we will be able to do it once again next year. I'm certain that one or multiple developers have talked about this.

[RealBitcoin]

Bitcoin really needs a very clear roadmap now, that is dumbed down, so that even the dumbest person can understand it.

Otherwise it will only be shilling and fudding forever. If people cant understand the issue, then its not good for the community.

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin really needs a very clear roadmap now, that is dumbed down, so that even the dumbest person can understand it.

Otherwise it will only be shilling and fudding forever. If people cant understand the issue, then its not good for the community.

there is no issue.

status quo prevails.

bitcoin wins.


ps: nobody gives a shit about "dumbest person", mother theresa.

[RealBitcoin]

there is no issue.

status quo prevails.

bitcoin wins.

Good

ps: nobody gives a shit about "dumbest person", mother theresa.

The problem is that that will halt bitcoin's growth.

Its clear that 70% of the population has an IQ of a stone, so if you want bitcoin to gain mass adoption:

It has to be easy to use.


Nobody understands HTTP and TCP or even javascript, but every idiot can upload a selfie to facebook.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin really needs a very clear roadmap now, that is dumbed down, so that even the dumbest person can understand it.

I don't think that will work either. Even if you just tell them, we're going to build X that will increase capacity to Y, they will start asking questions. If you keep answering these questions, eventually you're going to come to more complex ones that require technical answers. Such people will stop understanding somewhere along the way.

ps: nobody gives a shit about "dumbest person"

There is also this. Well, almost nobody.

Nobody understands HTTP and TCP, but every idiot can upload a selfie to facebook.

Indeed.