ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[RealBitcoin]

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.

You have just summed up why democracy fails

And why a libertarian meritocratic capitalist governing model is the only way to progress humanity

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

Indeed.

Actually thats not true, there are youtube tutorials how to upload a selfie. So there are even more braindead people out there, that cant even understand that.

The collective intelligence of the sheeps cant even light up a lightbulb

[Lauda]

You have just summed up why democracy fails And why a libertarian meritocratic capitalist governing model is the only way to progress humanity

If anything, we need to spread out the motive that the average user does not need to understand how the underlying technology works exactly. They only need to know that it works. The same applies to the current monetary system, as I'm sure that the majority do not know how it works exactly. Even if we simplify the roadmap, it won't help much. An ELI5 to 'almost' every major change such as Segwit might help though.

Actually thats not true, there are youtube tutorials how to upload a selfie. So there are even more braindead people out there, that cant even understand that.

Well, that was unexpected.

The collective intelligence of the sheeps cant even light up a lightbulb

They barely understand what a lightbulb is.
Meanwhile, another attack in progress (notices high bandwidth usage for my node so went to check):

[hdbuck]

man come on, "dumbest person" understanding bitcoin, or even ever be in the need of it before any other tangible life basic need is dul, and im staying polite here.

[RealBitcoin]

man come on, "dumbest person" understanding bitcoin, or even ever be in the need of it before any other tangible life basic need is dul, and im staying polite here.

It's true, the more dumb a person is, the less needs it have, and the more animalistic it is.

For example dumb people have only 3 needs: food, water, sex.


And as person is more and more intelligent, it starts to discover the world around him, and becomes less animal, and more sentient.

To talk about society issues like decentralization and fiat money, a person must have at least an IQ of 100.

[blunderer]

man come on, "dumbest person" understanding bitcoin, or even ever be in the need of it before any other tangible life basic need is dul, and im staying polite here.

It's true, the more dumb a person is, the less needs it have, and the more animalistic it is.

For example dumb people have only 3 needs: food, water, sex.


And as person is more and more intelligent, it starts to develop a need to hoard BTCeanie BTCabies beetcoins.

It's true!
Those with excess cerebral capacity, i.e. those not exhausting it to satisfy the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, develop irrational "adult play" behaviors, presumably to occupy this excess waking time. Hoarding is quite common.
Had a very intelligent ferret when I was a kid. Pens stared vanishing around the house. Eventually found them all in a heap, in a corner, under my bed.
All pens/pen-like things in the house ended up in that heap again, eventually. I'd move the bed, get all the pens, and have to do it all over again. Buying more pens was not a solution 00 if there were pens to hoard, he'd find them and stick them on his heap.
A most intelligent animal.

“My advice to you, my violent friend, is to seek out gold and sit on it.” --The Dragon, Grendel

[RealBitcoin]

Hoarding is quite common.

Hoarding might be an animalistic instinct when faced with apocalypse, a person tries to secure resources for him and his family.

But it depends when they do it. The financial collapse is just around the corner, yet none of those dumber people are hoarding anything.

They just think that the welfare and pensions will come forever, and no need to panic.

Well lemme tell you something it wont. Everyone must take his destiny in his own hands!

[oakpacific]

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.

Wonder if you can recall anything before there was Safari, Mozilla and Chrome.

That one player M$ did try very hard to screw up all sorts of standards by being "innovative" and more "user friendly" aka breaking compatibility.

Document.all, marquee, ActiveX, VBScript... say these words to a senior web developer once and he will want to punch you in the face.

Perhaps the most important reason that Mozilla won web developers to Firefox was to stick to the web standards(which they did not create), rather than creating their own. It's exactly because browser developers learnt a lesson from IE6 and thus make sticking to web standards a super political correctness, that we could have a uniform browsing experience regardless which browser we are using today.

Needless to say, there are countless network protocols which leaves no room for maneuvering when it comes to implementation, you ever heard of anyone coming up with their own version of SSL/TLS protocol?

[gmaxwell]

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.

Thats how BIP9 works right now. Perhaps experience with the first BIP9 deployments (CSV/etc.) will cause the spec to be changed, but for now it's reasonable to assume that it won't be.

(There is a lot more to the trigger threshold than just "95%"-- BIP9 gets rid of the rolling measurement so the 95% from BIP9 is a much higher bar than the 95% from the rolling method used in the past; the network has never used a bar this high for a soft-fork deployment before, so we may learn some things during the roll of of the first features with it.)

[RealBitcoin]

Needless to say, there are countless network protocols which leaves no room for maneuvering when it comes to implementation, you ever heard of anyone coming up with their own version of SSL/TLS protocol?

When the ISP's will be decentralized then it will be possible, which is only a thing yet to come.

I`m sure the SSL/TLS can be improved too, just like anything.

But you also have to factor in the risks of improving somethings, vs the safety of leaving the old protocol.


So even if the bitcoin protocol is outdated, I`d prefer to not risk an update of it, and to break more things.

A protocol must stay simple, and must have a capacity in it to be scaleable. And then just build on it.


Changing a core protocol is like changing a constitution. Never a good idea

Those that want to do it are either:  cowboys, tyrants, or fools.

Nontheless, not the good people.

[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.

Wonder if you can recall anything before there was Safari, Mozilla and Chrome.

That one player M$ did try very hard to screw up all sorts of standards by being "innovative" and more "user friendly" aka breaking compatibility.

Document.all, marquee, ActiveX, VBScript... say these words to a senior web developer once and he will want to punch you in the face.

Perhaps the most important reason that Mozilla won web developers to Firefox was to stick to the web standards(which they did not create), rather than creating their own. It's exactly because browser developers learnt a lesson from IE6 and thus make sticking to web standards a super political correctness, that we could have a uniform browsing experience regardless which browser we are using today.

Needless to say, there are countless network protocols which leaves no room for maneuvering when it comes to implementation, you ever heard of anyone coming up with their own version of SSL/TLS protocol?

ever heard of IPv4 and IPv6?

thats a more suitable analogy to the blocksize problem...

segwit is NAT
2MB is IPv6
Lighting network is UDP holepunching

lmao

[RealBitcoin]

ever heard of IPv4 and IPv6?

thats a more suitable analogy to the blocksize problem...

segwit is NAT
2MB is IPv6

Ipv6 is horrible for privacy, it leaks MAC address.

I`m sure the bitcoin classic has some totalitarian patches in it, like that blacklisting stuff?

[adamstgBit]

ever heard of IPv4 and IPv6?

thats a more suitable analogy to the blocksize problem...

segwit is NAT
2MB is IPv6

Ipv6 is horrible for privacy, it leaks MAC address.

I`m sure the bitcoin classic has some totalitarian patches in it, like that blacklisting stuff?

you can Sit behind NAT's security model with IPv6 too...

[trashman43]

RE: renting hashing power to "force a fork" : That is the way Bitcoin consensus works.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/d20374y

is this guy for real? how is this any different than miners colluding to double spend attack? why the hell should some temporary spike in hashpower be able to permanently change the consensus rules for the entire userbase?

[Lauda]

RE: renting hashing power to "force a fork" : That is the way Bitcoin consensus works.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/d20374y

is this guy for real? how is this any different than miners colluding to double spend attack?

It isn't really any different. I have no idea what is up with him.
Mempool at 1.6GB, another futile attempt to induce false urgency to increase the block size limit.  

[JayJuanGee]

RE: renting hashing power to "force a fork" : That is the way Bitcoin consensus works.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/d20374y

is this guy for real? how is this any different than miners colluding to double spend attack?

It isn't really any different. I have no idea what is up with him.
Mempool at 1.6GB, another futile attempt to induce false urgency to increase the block size limit.  

Hey Lauda.. .from where do you like to review mempool data? 

I tend to trust blockchain.info for a lot of charts, but they do not seem to have any charts based on mempool or historical mempool status, which could be helpful in analyzing how long mempools are full (or backed up)  and if there are historical spikes in mempool fullness (or backlogs).

[adamstgBit]

RE: renting hashing power to "force a fork" : That is the way Bitcoin consensus works.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/d20374y
why the hell should some temporary spike in hashpower be able to permanently change the consensus rules for the entire userbase?

because thats how bitcoin works...
but in practice its impossible to fork bitcoin one way or the other simply because you have >51% hashing power
you really need like 75% hashing power 75% users, 75% everyone involved in bitcoin onboard with you to make a HF change that will stick.
say you rent 60% hashing power and fork to 2MB block while >75% of users  disagree with it, they will simply ignore your fucked up blockchain and continue hashing away with 40% on what they consider the valid chain.
thats why its so important to make you 1MB fans understand why 2MB is bigger and bigger is better. we can't do this without your understanding. if not our only choice will be to create a brand new coin...

[trashman43]

RE: renting hashing power to "force a fork" : That is the way Bitcoin consensus works.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4egnvh/peter_todd_worried_about_those_willing_to_fork/d20374y
why the hell should some temporary spike in hashpower be able to permanently change the consensus rules for the entire userbase?

because thats how bitcoin works...
but in practice its impossible to fork bitcoin one way or the other simply because you have >51% hashing power

no, whitepaper talks about majorities only in context of the best blockchain (e.g. the most-difficult-to-recreate chain). not the underlying consensus rules. you guys are completely twisting how bitcoin works.

you really need like 75% hashing power 75% users, 75% everyone involved in bitcoin onboard with you to make a HF change that will stick.

how do you know 75% "will stick?" cuz gavin said so?

and what the hell does "75% hashing power" have to do with "75% users, 75% everyone involved in bitcoin?" they have no relationship. hashpower is totally irrelevant to user interests. hashpower follows users on operators' best estimation.

they may be *wrong* and they may be *malicious.* in either case, i as a user am not forced to consent to whatever some majority of miners decide.

say you rent 60% hashing power and fork to 2MB block while >75% of users  disagree with it, they will simply ignore your fucked up blockchain and continue hashing away with 40% on what they consider the valid chain.
thats why its so important to make you 1MB fans understand why 2MB is bigger and bigger is better. we can't do this without your understanding. if not our only choice will be to create a brand new coin...

how do you know that at 60% hashpower, >75% of users will ignore the invalid chain, rather than updating to new rules? how do you know that 75% hashpower, >75% of users will change their consensus rules?

yes, create a new coin plox. that's a more honest route than trying to split the network with a controversial hard fork.

[adamstgBit]

how do you know 75% "will stick?" cuz gavin said so?

well hmm ya, he said a few words about 75% or 80% or 95% and i believe his reasoning is sound, and 75% is safe.

hashpower is totally irrelevant to user interests

nonsense

how do you know that at 60% hashpower, >75% of users will ignore the invalid chain, rather than updating to new rules? how do you know that 75% hashpower, >75% of users will change their consensus rules?

i dont think you're understanding me.
if you have 60% of hashing power going against >75% of everyone else , everyone else will ignore the altcoin  60% hashing power created.
imagine 60% rented hashing power forks 21million coin limit to 42milion coin limit...
as a user you can chose 41million coin bitcoin running at 60% hashing power(which has been rented for limited time) or 21million coin bitcoin running at 40%
which one would you pick O_o?

yes, create a new coin plox. that's a more honest route than trying to split the network with a controversial hard fork.

trying to fork bitcoin with anything less than 51% hashing power is just silly silly...
75% is minimal, 75% = safe bet everyone will follow suit
but ya anything much less then that is kinda silly to even try.
if you feel strongly about a change and you have less than 75% hashing power agreeing with you, the best thing to do is start an altcoin.

[trashman43]

how do you know 75% "will stick?" cuz gavin said so?

well hmm ya, he said a few words about 75% or 80% or 95% and i believe his reasoning is sound, and 75% is safe.

in other words, you have no reasoning or logic to offer?

hashpower is totally irrelevant to user interests

nonsense

how so? miners don't have the same interests as me. miners are interested in profit. that means a rational miner will double spend if it is profitable. you think that matches my interests as a user?

how do you know that at 60% hashpower, >75% of users will ignore the invalid chain, rather than updating to new rules? how do you know that 75% hashpower, >75% of users will change their consensus rules?

i dont think you're understanding me.
if you have 60% of hashing power going against >75% of everyone else , everyone else will ignore the altcoin  60% hashing power created.
imagine 60% rented hashing power forks 21million coin limit to 42milion coin limit...
as a user you can chose 41million coin bitcoin running at 60% hashing power(which has been rented for limited time) or 21million coin bitcoin running at 40%
which one would you pick O_o?

yeah "against >75% of everyone else" is the problem. how would you even begin to determine who >75% of everyone else is, and what they want?

based on your example, i think we can agree that no amount of hashpower can guarantee a successful fork.

yes, create a new coin plox. that's a more honest route than trying to split the network with a controversial hard fork.

trying to fork bitcoin with anything less than 51% hashing power is just silly silly...
75% is minimal, 75% = safe bet everyone will follow suit
but ya anything much less then that is kinda silly to even try.
if you feel strongly about a change and you have less than 75% hashing power agreeing with you, the best thing to do is start an altcoin.

again, how do you know that 75% is safe and that everyone will follow suit? i agree, start an altcoin if you cant achieve consensus. if you really are capable of achieving consensus, why set the bar at 75%?

[adamstgBit]

how do you know 75% "will stick?" cuz gavin said so?

well hmm ya, he said a few words about 75% or 80% or 95% and i believe his reasoning is sound, and 75% is safe.

in other words, you have no reasoning or logic to offer?

i do.

hashpower is totally irrelevant to user interests

nonsense

how so? miners don't have the same interests as me. miners are interested in profit. that means a rational miner will double spend if it is profitable. you think that matches my interests as a user?

users give value to the coins, if miners start double spending users wont value the coins, they will double spend worthless coins....
the miners main concern is how to best service the user base, the happier there users are the more valuable the coins they mine become.

how do you know that at 60% hashpower, >75% of users will ignore the invalid chain, rather than updating to new rules? how do you know that 75% hashpower, >75% of users will change their consensus rules?

i dont think you're understanding me.
if you have 60% of hashing power going against >75% of everyone else , everyone else will ignore the altcoin  60% hashing power created.
imagine 60% rented hashing power forks 21million coin limit to 42milion coin limit...
as a user you can chose 41million coin bitcoin running at 60% hashing power(which has been rented for limited time) or 21million coin bitcoin running at 40%
which one would you pick O_o?

yeah "against >75% of everyone else" is the problem. how would you even begin to determine who >75% of everyone else is, and what they want?

based on your example, i think we can agree that no amount of hashpower can guarantee a successful fork.

My example was with hash power known to be rented, renting 60% of bitcoin hashing power is impossible. I think generally hashing power represents the will of the community at large fairly well. miners want to service users as best they can, and so they act and vote accordingly. but in a case where hashing power is no reflective of user interest it will be known fast, and that change miners are pushing for will not stick.

its easy to measure, survey 1000 random bitcoiners, and with that sample data you can get an approximate measurement of "everyone else"

 

yes, create a new coin plox. that's a more honest route than trying to split the network with a controversial hard fork.

trying to fork bitcoin with anything less than 51% hashing power is just silly silly...
75% is minimal, 75% = safe bet everyone will follow suit
but ya anything much less then that is kinda silly to even try.
if you feel strongly about a change and you have less than 75% hashing power agreeing with you, the best thing to do is start an altcoin.

again, how do you know that 75% is safe and that everyone will follow suit? i agree, start an altcoin if you cant achieve consensus. if you really are capable of achieving consensus, why set the bar at 75%?

because at 95% 5% hashing power can veto changes and the dev process stalls.

you have to look at the hashing power voting as an educated guess / personal preference.

if you have 3 BIP's all trying to solve the same problem, all of which are valid and have their own pros and cons / trade offs, the fact that one of them gains 75% of the votes means that it is somehow superior in some way. if it gain >95% it would tend to indicate that there was somthing seriously wrong with the other BIPs. point is if all 3 BIP have roughly equal merit its impossible that consensus will ever be reached, and in truth miners are most likely expressing a preference by voting not necessarily meaning the are strongly opposed to the other BIPs. so wtf.

let put this in context

say segwit is released and it gains 60% hashing power does this mean the other 40% are strongly opposed to segwit? probably not... wait another few weeks and more discussions and understanding take place, and boom we have 76% hashing power, do we really need to wait for the other 24% hashing power?  even if the remaining 24% were all strongly opposed to segwit, they pose no threat to us.