ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[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?

i do.

but you refuse to offer it.

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.

that may be the miners' main concern. they are also working off mere perception. they can be wrong -- very wrong -- about what users want. they are also motivated by short term profit, and game theory says they may be willing to sacrifice long term interest (happy users) if short term gains (i.e. from double spending) are large enough. the relative anonymity of miners and the potentially fly-by-night nature of pools adds to this.

again, miners interests =/= user interests. miners have a distinct incentive -- particularly if fees are too low -- to double spend. users have no interest in this whatsoever.

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"

miners have long term interest in serving users. they have short term interests in maximizing profit -- whether honestly or not. you can keep repeating that hash power represents the will of the community, but you offer no evidence for it. you simply keep ignoring contexts in which clearly miners interests diverge from users.

how can we ensure this survey is honest and representative? i can produce such a survey and i assure you, it won't be.

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.

so what? that doesn't mean that we should allow a majority to change the rules for the minority, up to and including stealing from the minority.

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

yeah, that's all it is. a guess. sorry but not interested in allowing consensus changes based on today's "guess" by miners.

[Lauda]

-snip-
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.

That is exactly what Classic is proposing. Replace 60% with 75% and you have the same answer. Basically, the BIP that Gavin has proposed is just designed very wrongly. It goes against the things that have been learned over time. With a grace period of 28 days, there is almost a certainty that the majority of the ecosystem would be left behind.

[adamstgBit]

-snip-
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.

That is exactly what Classic is proposing. Replace 60% with 75% and you have the same answer. Basically, the BIP that Gavin has proposed is just designed very wrongly. It goes against the things that have been learned over time. With a grace period of 28 days, there is almost a certainty that the majority of the ecosystem would be left behind.

no?
75% are ready and willing, and then 28 days is plenty of time for the other miners that voted against it to get ready.
worst case sanoir only 25% "get left behind". but its not as tho that 25% can't simply say " OH Shit i should have upgraded in time! better late than never..."

maybe you mean the non-mining full nodes...
i think poeple like coinbase and blockchain.info, will upgrade promptly.
the only poeple slow to upgrade will be home users that dont really need to have their wallet running all the time.
these users, I'm not at all concerned with, its not critical they upgrade no one depends on their wallet running smoothly, they will run up oneday they will open up their wallet and it'll be like " you out of date please upgrade, or you won't be able to connect to the network. " kinda like team viewer does to me everytime i go to use it.

not sure if bitcoin has this neat auto-update from the app. feather thing, it should be added in...

[Lauda]

no?
75% are ready and willing, and then 28 days is plenty of time for the other miners that voted against it to get ready.
worst case sanoir only 25% "get left behind". but its not as tho that 25% can't simply say " OH Shit i should have upgraded in time! better late than never..."

The 75% consensus threshold representsonly hashrate, i.e. the miners. Miners are only a part of the ecosystem. With a grace period of 28 days, the majority would most likely be left behind (e.g. users, merchants).

the only poeple slow to upgrade will be home users that dont really need to have their wallet running all the time.

False assumption. Nodes operators do not update as frequently and as fast as you think; you can verify this yourself. If you don't think that these nodes are not important ('non-mining nodes') then you have come to the wrong 'neighborhood'.

[adamstgBit]

but you refuse to offer it.

lol.

that may be the miners' main concern. they are also working off mere perception. they can be wrong -- very wrong -- about what users want. they are also motivated by short term profit, and game theory says they may be willing to sacrifice long term interest (happy users) if short term gains (i.e. from double spending) are large enough. the relative anonymity of miners and the potentially fly-by-night nature of pools adds to this.

again, miners interests =/= user interests. miners have a distinct incentive -- particularly if fees are too low -- to double spend. users have no interest in this whatsoever.

IMO you're totally over exaggerating the disconnect between user interests and miner interests.
Miners have a long term stake in the game, they have an investment in hardware that takes them about a year to to start getting a ROI
most of them are constantly reinvesting in new hardware which solidifies their long term stake.

if anything users might be the ones that are short sighted, they can buy-in and sell-out at a moment's notice.

users could buy now, push of segwit + LN and then sell the moment its released, they might not care how segwit +LN changes the game, they only care about the short term profit a smooth deployment of a scaling solution might potentially have.

you simply keep ignoring contexts in which clearly miners interests diverge from users.

here, a RL example:
there was a time when a mining pool got ~50% hashing power, they IMMEDIATELY took steps to separate the hashing power, because they knew it made users concerned.
they could have gotten >51% hashing power and started to double spend like mad fools for short term profit, they didnt!

how can we ensure this survey is honest and representative? i can produce such a survey and i assure you, it won't be.

you try your best to make sure your sample is representative of the community at large
example for ever female bitcoiner you survey, you survey 100 males.  
its imperfect but... meh.

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

yeah, that's all it is. a guess. sorry but not interested in allowing consensus changes based on today's "guess" by miners.

the idea is that if we put all the best guess / preferences together we get a very good guess.

the wisdom of the crowd type thing

[adamstgBit]

the only poeple slow to upgrade will be home users that dont really need to have their wallet running all the time.

False assumption. Nodes operators do not update as frequently and as fast as you think; you can verify this yourself. If you don't think that these nodes are not important ('non-mining nodes') then you have come to the wrong 'neighborhood'.

if your node is responsible for handling other people's monies you have a responsibility to run a well oiled machine.

node operators have not be faced with a HF before, of course i would expect them to not upgrade on every minor release, if it doesn't affect their ability to service their clients they probably hold off upgrading to allow that new build to be tested by everyone else and or plan to upgrade after a few minor releases have been piling up.

 

[Lauda]

if your node is responsible for handling other people's monies you have a responsibility to run a well oiled machine.

No, I do not have such a responsibility. You're saying it like my node is supposed to 'serve' other people.

node operators have not be faced with a HF before, of course i would expect them to not upgrade on every minor release, if it doesn't affect their ability to service their clients they probably hold off upgrading to allow that new build to be tested by everyone else and or plan to upgrade after a few minor releases have been piling up.

Speculation as always. You don't have the data, nor does the network have experience. It could end up being a disaster, you never know.

[adamstgBit]

if your node is responsible for handling other people's monies you have a responsibility to run a well oiled machine.

No, I do not have such a responsibility. You're saying it like my node is supposed to 'serve' other people.

if your node is not servicing other poeple ( ex. coinbase's node ) then you fall in the home user side and i dont care if you upgare or not, if you dont upgrade you'll be bumped of the network and that only affects you really...

node operators have not be faced with a HF before, of course i would expect them to not upgrade on every minor release, if it doesn't affect their ability to service their clients they probably hold off upgrading to allow that new build to be tested by everyone else and or plan to upgrade after a few minor releases have been piling up.

Speculation as always. You don't have the data, nor does the network have experience. It could end up being a disaster, you never know.

[/quote]
you're being paranoid, did you lock yourself in your basement for the Y2K bug ?
yes its safe to assume that ( coinbase, bitpay, bitfinex, Purse.io  etc etc) will all upgraded in time.
they will likely receive 100's of emails from concerned users asking them if they will be ready for the coming HF.
along with several general announcements from the dev community warning them of the coming HF.

maybe pizza4coins.com will not upagred ( and lets assume he dosnt use bitpay ) but whats that going to do? users will send him funds and his wallet wont see them confrim until he upgrades, not the end of the world...

yes this is all Speculation, best guess, assumption and estimates. but have no fear, Gavin said its would all be just fine 

[Lauda]

if your node is not servicing other poeple ( ex. coinbase's node ) then you fall in the home user side and i dont care if you upgare or not, if you dont upgrade you'll be bumped of the network and that only affects you really...

I never said that my node didn't process other peoples transactions. I said that my node is not responsible for other people's "stuff". I run it for personal reasons and in order to help with the decentralization (unlike those datacenter-concentrated nodes).

you're being paranoid, did you lock yourself in your basement for the Y2K bug ?
yes its safe to assume that ( coinbase, bitpay, bitfinex, Purse.io  etc etc) will all upgraded in time.

Like it was safe to assume that OKPay would be prepared, back in 2013, yet it didn't (at least 1 known double spend occurred)?

[adamstgBit]

you're being paranoid, did you lock yourself in your basement for the Y2K bug ?
yes its safe to assume that ( coinbase, bitpay, bitfinex, Purse.io  etc etc) will all upgraded in time.

Like it was safe to assume that OKPay would be prepared, back in 2013, yet it didn't (at least 1 known double spend occurred)?

This proves that they will upgrade in a timely manner. the fork you're pointing to had no grace period, it was an unexpected fork, and when it came time to upgrade they did so in a matter of hours.

[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?

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

Yeah don't you find it ironic that experts had started screaming 'we will run out of IP address space soon, increase it NAOO" since 20 years ago, and today internet is still chugging along on IPV4 just fine?

[adamstgBit]

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

Yeah don't you find it ironic that experts had started screaming 'we will run out of IP address space soon, increase it NAOO" since 20 years ago, and today internet is still chugging along on IPV4 just fine?

the analogy fits quite well...

I think IPv6 will eventually be widely used and at one point IPv4 will be dropped entirely. its only a matter of time IMO.
sure we have mitigated the problem with NAT, but its has only delayed the problem ( and created a bit of a headache for network apps. )
just like 1MB blocks we can mitigate the issue by using LN, but in the end eventually 1MB is simply not be enough space.

i think the moral of the story is to design things in such a way that they dont have limits, or put in place retardedly high limits.

you think 4billion IP address is enough? think again

you think a 3 lane highway is enough? think again!

[WestHarrison]

Brilliant article explaining the benefits of Schnorr Signatures https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-power-of-schnorr-the-signature-algorithm-to-increase-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496.  

Coming to a Bitcoin Core Node near you!

This is the real tech and real scaling that the core team is capable of.

[Lauda]

This proves that they will upgrade in a timely manner. the fork you're pointing to had no grace period, it was an unexpected fork, and when it came time to upgrade they did so in a matter of hours.

They could have prevented that from happening had they upgraded to a newer version in time, but they didn't. Regardless, you are just speculating and hoping the everyone will rush into upgrading within 28 days. Again, pretty much everyone who has a somewhat better understanding disagrees with the grace period (including Garzik, who is a Classic supporter).

Coming to a Bitcoin Core Node near you! This is the real tech and real scaling that the core team is capable of.

This is what a real team of developers is capable of and should focus on.
Humor time: Pieter Wuille facts.

[hdbuck]

the wisdom of the crowd type thing

i think ima vomit.

[brg444]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4fdaqe/supporters_of_2_mb_bitcoin_blocks_unable_to/

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/supporters-of-mb-bitcoin-blocks-unable-to-convince-miners-to-hard-fork-in-beijing-meeting-1461004264

Stick a fork in it it's done 

[Carlton Banks]

Oh bad luck, gentlemen.

I'm now entering a new phase: concern about what the dying bankster behemoth will come up with next to bring Bitcoin down. It's possible that brute force is all they've got left, which is possibly bad news in the short term, despite the potential for plenty of corresponding publicity. And the timing seems a little extraordinary, events around the world impacting the legacy financial system are beginning to look like they are coming to the boil.

[hdbuck]

Oh bad luck, gentlemen.

I'm now entering a new phase: concern about what the dying bankster behemoth will come up with next to bring Bitcoin down. It's possible that brute force is all they've got left, which is possibly bad news in the short term, despite the potential for plenty of corresponding publicity. And the timing seems a little extraordinary, events around the world impacting the legacy financial system are beginning to look like they are coming to the boil.

im all in for that last, desperate, move:

[Carlton Banks]

lol right there with you buddy.

Worldwide political instability? Reserve currency close to all-out fight against it's nearest (value pegged) rival? Intangible, cryptographically scarce assets that cannot be confiscated? Hello?

[WestHarrison]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4fdaqe/supporters_of_2_mb_bitcoin_blocks_unable_to/

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/supporters-of-mb-bitcoin-blocks-unable-to-convince-miners-to-hard-fork-in-beijing-meeting-1461004264

Stick a fork in it it's done 

BigBlockers on suicide watch!