ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Lauda]

Core logic: if bitcoin nodes are only ran by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
Classic logic: if bitcoin becomes a settlement layer only used by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.

i side with Classic on this one....

Not really. Although, there are even people that argue that Bitcoin has always operated as a settlement layer. Anyhow, stop with the bullshit and nonsense from Classic. The block size limit is the most ineffective, and idiotic way to scale Bitcoin. Discussing is pointless at the moment due to three things (that we have concluded over this time period):
1) You're wrong.
2) You won't admit to being wrong regardless of evidence.
3) Look again at 1.

[adamstgBit]

Core logic: if bitcoin nodes are only ran by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
Classic logic: if bitcoin becomes a settlement layer only used by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.

i side with Classic on this one....

Not really. Although, there are even people that argue that Bitcoin has always operated as a settlement layer. Anyhow, stop with the bullshit and nonsense from Classic. The block size limit is the most ineffective, and idiotic way to scale Bitcoin. Discussing is pointless at the moment due to three things (that we have concluded over this time period):
1) You're wrong.
2) You won't admit to being wrong regardless of evidence.
3) Look again at 1.

the only evidence i will accept is some logical scenario in which i can still send 5$ donation to wikileaks, even if fee on the blockchain are above 5$.

[CIYAM]

the only evidence i will accept is some logical scenario in which i can still send 5$ donation to wikileaks, even if fee on the blockchain are above 5$.

Ever heard of a "straw man" argument?

(of course you have as you have been using them for about the last year)

A bought account spouting nonsense is all that @adamstgBit is now (and interestingly enough the other "usual suspects" seemed to have stopped posting so maybe the "classic" funds are now running dry).

[adamstgBit]

public announcement:
the will of the majority has officially dissolved my own, i hear by welcome and am excited to see how all this segwit + LN + very decentralized nodes, will play out, and i think it will be a positive change.
my foolish notions of sacrificing some decentralization for immediate capacity incress are no more,  and have been replaced with a more balanced view of growth by means of additional layers in order to provide unlimited capacity while keeping bitcoin fully decentralized.
the temporary congestion on the network due to the lack of readiness of LN, is insufficient justification to change the conuses protocol to 2MB blocks.
I make no apologies for my past views, and the poeple i have annoyed, it was necessary for me to play devil's advocate to apply and maintain maximum tension between both sides, to insure the most balanced outcome was reached. now that the course is locked in i see no reason to continue to fight a losing battle.

[Lauda]

the temporary congestion on the network due to the lack of readiness of LN

No. Is it mostly due to spam. That's about it. My mempool knows what is up.

[JayJuanGee]

What i see right now is that miners are afraid of a "change in government" this is the primary reason why XT and Classic failed to gain their support. its not a change of government i want, its a change in governance. if that makes any sense    
so i do everything i can to make that happen, run a BU node and chat about it.

In essence, the above idea likely explains a great deal of your failing/refusing to accept and to seem inclined to falsely point out conspiracies in a large number of areas.  In this regard, you take a few facts, and then you assign malevolence within speculating how they will play out....   Probably, you need to fix this yourself, rather than spewing out some of these various conspiracies on public forums... while apparently attempting to get others to jump onto your conspiratorial logic.   

Surely, skepticism is healthy, and I surely agree that there are a lot of true and real conspiracies out there that undermine regular people, but we gotta be somewhat practical in our acceptance that the world has a variety of explanations for outcomes and directions besides conspiracies.

Accordingly, bitcoin's governance is not broken.  Difficulty in making changes is a feature and not a bug,  and it seems to be a very good thing that it is difficult to change it (such as implementing stupid ass governance changes within XT and classic - that really should be recognized as coup attempts).
 

[adamstgBit]

the temporary congestion on the network due to the lack of readiness of LN

No. Is it mostly due to spam. That's about it. My mempool knows what is up.

i guess we'll always have some level of congestion on the mainchain because of this spam. oh well out pricing the spam inorder to get into a block is a tiny 2-5 cent fee, so no big deal.

[Carlton Banks]

The block size limit is the most ineffective, and idiotic way to scale Bitcoin.

I'd go further than that, changing the blocksize doesn't alter the scale that Bitcoin operates on at all, it simply increases the transaction throughput by the same factor that resource usage is currently set to (i.e. 226 bytes per input, 1MB per block). Doing that literally does not change the scale in any way.

[exstasie]

who will open LN channels and make 1000's of payments to each other? poeple like CoinBase and Bitpay.

The funny thing about this comment is that the vast majority of onchain merchant commerce is processed through Coinbase and Bitpay. I would posit that for the majority of commerce-related transactions, both buyers and merchants would be happy to connect to Coinbase and Bitpay on LN. Are you suggesting that moving this activity off-chain is bad for bitcoin? Bad for scaling? I'm at a loss.

its a problem... when coinbase realizes it always has about 10X more user deposits then it does user funds tied up in the lighting network, and can easily start fractional reserve operation.

That's possible when people use Coinbase as a custodian for their bitcoins, as is commonly done now. Your exchange balance is an IOU for bitcoins.

It's impossible on the Lightning Network since spenders on LN can recoup their money if/when Coinbase can't cover its channel obligations. That's the point of time-locked contracts.

IMO LN will fosters this type of scheme were coinbase behaves like a bank, and blockchain is a settlement layer the users dont have direct access to.

LN users have direct access to the blockchain as they always do; onchain fees may be higher than when there was no demand for bitcoin transactions, yes. That's why a channel-open onchain transaction + negligible fees on LN thereafter is preferable to one onchain transaction.

also, I might not be able to send a 5$ donation to wikileaks because coinbase is a regulated entity and i am forced to deal with coinbase for TX <25$ because its to costly to do <25$ payments directly on the blockchain.

If your speculation about prohibitive onchain fees and the limits of LN to a hub-and-spoke model, maybe. Neither of those scenarios are entirely clear. In any case, LN is a proposed solution for micropayments. There was never any implicit guarantee of perpetually free/cheap bitcoin transactions. If LN routing is not as robust as planned, bitcoin continues to function as intended.

how to regulate the blockchain payments.

step 1, regulate large bank like bitcoin entities
step 2, prohibit users from using the blockchain directly by imposing high fees.

DONE!

Fees are not a novel concept in bitcoin, Adam. Your comments merely boil down to whining about not wanting to pay the costs of a confirmed onchain transaction.

The danger of reliance on centralized entities is well known. The beauty of LN is that user funds are not subject to the dangers of such centralization, as LN users are still the custodians of their own money.

I might be exaggerating the level of fees. fees might very well come down to 2012 levels once LN makes all the TX happening between bitpay coinbase bitfinex stamps etc etc all of chain, allowing users to keep making direct payment on the blockchain and leverage the LN to quickly move funds between coinbase and stamps or whatever. but i can see how eventually ( should the 1MB limit never be raised ) the blockchain will be over runned by LN open and close TX's and since millions of dollars will be transacted in these channels fees for opening and closing these channels could be 10's if not 100's of dollars.

That's possible. Probable? Who knows. It doesn't sound like the worst problem to have. Such demand for bitcoin and bitcoin transactions only suggest very good things for investors. For those of us who look to bitcoin as a store of value, and not primarily as a payment method for everyday purchases, this is a very good thing.

a fee of 50$ to transact the main chain means individuals payments MUST go through payment gateways which is a bad thing, which is what bitcoin was meant to avoid.

You're just pulling numbers out of your ass. If a typical onchain fee = $50, what value of transactions are we talking about?

[JayJuanGee]

there is a lack of world governance, and therefore, a kind of anarchy

Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", it means "no rulers".

No rules would be a bad thing. No rulers would be a good thing. Hence, anarchy good, government bad.

I agree with your overall point about some rules being good - and there can be considerable arbitrariness with rulers; however, to me, it sounds as if you are attempting to make one of those lame libertarian and nonsensical distinctions.  

Well, the word "rule" and "ruler" are superficially similar, but the meanings are considerably different from one another. You're describing the distinction as "nonsense" and "lame"? I wouldn't like to be around you in a situation where that difference mattered. That difference makes a great deal of sense, even if you refuse to acknowledge it. They are separate words with separate spellings for a reason: because they're not the same word, and do not mean the same thing

Actually, your narrow focus on one word does not make you smart, but instead makes you patronizing and deviating from the actual point(s) that I made.

I've read several of your posts, and frequently, you make decent sense, except when you get on some of these dumb-ass tangents...


Yes, we all know rule and ruler are two words and two related concepts; however, for the purposes and points that I was making, it doesn't fucking matter... thus.... this part of the discussion has become a considerable and irrelevant tangent... that possibly makes you feel good because you want to instruct regarding some irrelevant point that you are acting as if you know and others do not know?

[Carlton Banks]

Actually, your narrow focus on one word does not make you smart, but instead makes you patronizing and deviating from the actual point(s) that I made.

Well, I've said once already that I agreed with the point you made! I just don't agree with the way you made it, i.e. misrepresenting an entire political philosophy as being a pernicious force in order to make your point. But the point stands, and I haven't said even once I disagreed, the opposite in fact.

This has got nothing to do with my feelings (), but of simply representing facts correctly. Sorry if your feelings have somehow become involved, but they shouldn't be.

[JayJuanGee]

who will open LN channels and make 1000's of payments to each other? poeple like CoinBase and Bitpay.
LN will interconnect these large entities and allow them to settle without the blockchain.
here is a visual representation of the LN scaling solution

Actually, that sounds great.  Are you trying to sell Lightning network... and to discontinue your pursuit of XT/Classic and/or other variations?


In the above described scenario, some of the bigger players will get off of the direct block; however, with LN they are still going to be within bitcoin and somewhat more transparent than they are currently with there variety of stupid-ass off chain transacting systems.  Accordingly, LN is going to probably accomplish at least a few goals 1) keeping more transactions accountable on the blockchain which lessens likelihood of fractional reserve banking 2) freeing up more of the blockchain for direct transactions, without the big boys, 3) allowing further delays in keeping the blocksize limit down in order that we do not get too much bloating

its a problem... when coinbase realizes it always has about 10X more user deposits then it does user funds tied up in the lighting network, and can easily start fractional reserve operation.

IMO LN will fosters this type of scheme were coinbase behaves like a bank, and blockchain is a settlement layer the users dont have direct access to.

Even though we are allowed to speculate here, we should attempt to stay within reality regarding some of our known facts, and you seem to be going on quite a tangent with your assumption that seg wit allows more opportunities for bitcoin-related fractional reserve banking. 

Let's consider that under our current bitcoin practice, we have quite a few bitcoin merchant entities and bitcoin exchanges that are holding private keys and therefore holding bitcoin's and conducting transactions off of the blockchain... in essence we have to trust that they are not trading more bitcoin's than they actually hold (through their off chain transactions).  The weight of the credible evidence seems to suggest that Lightning Network creates structures and incentives to have more and more of these historical transactions to be connected with the blockchain.  Even though they may not be immediately settled, they are connected with the blockchain, and entities using LN will not be able to transact with coins that they do not have. 

You seem to be suggesting the opposite, as if LN transactions will not be tied to the blockchain and entities utilizing LN can somehow create or use coins on the LN that they do not have... which makes little sense... based on the actual factual descriptions regarding what LN provides.

also, I might not be able to send a 5$ donation to wikileaks because coinbase is a regulated entity and i am forced to deal with coinbase for TX <25$ because its to costly to do <25$ payments directly on the blockchain.

We gotta see how it plays out... It is way too early to be attempting to predict fees based on potential services that are going to be offered and the extent that there may be competition.

how to regulate the blockchain payments.

step 1, regulate large bank like bitcoin entities
step 2, prohibit users from using the blockchain directly by imposing high fees.

DONE!

Makes little sense.  There are going to be both regulated and non regulated conduct within this space for some time to come.

I might be exaggerating the level of fees. fees might very well come down to 2012 levels once LN makes all the TX happening between bitpay coinbase bitfinex stamps etc etc all of chain, allowing users to keep making direct payment on the blockchain and leverage the LN to quickly move funds between coinbase and stamps or whatever.

yeah... you do seem to be exaggerating fees because we really do not know, yet.... because there are forces in both directions (bringing fees up and bringing fees down)

but i can see how eventually ( should the 1MB limit never be raised )

It's possible that there will not be a need to increase the blockchain limit.  Why raise it if it does not need to be raised?

the blockchain will be over runned by LN open and close TX's and since millions of dollars will be transacted in these channels fees for opening and closing these channels could be 10's if not 100's of dollars.

I doubt that anytime soon we are going from free and penny transactions to $10 to $100 transactions.. makes little sense, in our life times.

a fee of 50$ to transact the main chain means individuals payments MUST go through payment gateways which is a bad thing, which is what bitcoin was meant to avoid.

If fees are that high, then I'm sure people will search for and find alternative and less expensive means to transact value.

[RoadStress]

i side with Classic on this one....

What about the Classic workforce aka engineers and code writers? Do you still side with Classic?

[marcus_of_augustus]

we are down to discussing favourable flavours of anarchy ... progress.

[JayJuanGee]

Core logic: if bitcoin nodes are only ran by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
Classic logic: if bitcoin becomes a settlement layer only used by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.

@adamstgBit logic - oops that actually doesn't exist (there is no logic behind your posts).

Epic fail

(and for those that are not aware he sold his account around a year ago so don't be fooled into thinking he has been around on this forum for years)

U don't really know that he actually sold his account.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Core logic: if bitcoin nodes are only ran by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
Classic logic: if bitcoin becomes a settlement layer only used by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.

@adamstgBit logic - oops that actually doesn't exist (there is no logic behind your posts).

Epic fail

(and for those that are not aware he sold his account around a year ago so don't be fooled into thinking he has been around on this forum for years)

U don't really know that he actually sold his account.

he may have just sold his soul ... I recall one post where he said that banksters were paying him megabucks per hour ... now he has said he enjoys to post about FUD that he is thinking about ... maybe he just gets paid megabucks to post any FUD he likes to think about? 2+2=? I guess I would enjoy that too.

[JayJuanGee]

Actually, your narrow focus on one word does not make you smart, but instead makes you patronizing and deviating from the actual point(s) that I made.

Well, I've said once already that I agreed with the point you made! I just don't agree with the way you made it, i.e. misrepresenting an entire political philosophy as being a pernicious force in order to make your point. But the point stands, and I haven't said even once I disagreed, the opposite in fact.

This has got nothing to do with my feelings (), but of simply representing facts correctly. Sorry if your feelings have somehow become involved, but they shouldn't be.

I don't know why you would conclude that my feelings are involved in this at any higher level than necessary. 


\I am just making various points on the internet.  You made your points and I made mine... 

[iCEBREAKER]

The global average does not make any sense. You need only 7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized, and rest of the slow internet user can just use SPV nodes. And you can already do it today. In 5 years, those full nodes can be upgraded to 10Gbps

You are the one who isn't making sense. I have no idea why ICEBREAKER even lets you spread nonsense here. People who run nodes don't really have an incentive (aside from businesses and miners?) to spend even more money on them. Even if we disregard the cost in advanced countries, exactly how do you plan that node operators in third world countries to upgrade to 1 Gbps (not to mention 10 Gbps)? Oh right, they don't matter for you (IIRC you mentioned the network being okay with 100 nodes; I could be mistaken).

I let johnyj spread nonsense because that creates a teachable moment.

For example, his nonsensical assertion about the network only needing "7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized" provies an ideal opportunity for educating him about the role DIVERSITY plays in a DIVERSE/diffuse/defensible/resilient (AKA "decentralized") network.

Thanks to his nonsense, we now have the chance to point out that limiting Bitcoin to 7000 nodes exclusively in data centers undermines the DIVERSITY of its network (and thus its interesting antifragile property).

The Visa-killing 1000tps-on-Layer-One thing johnyj wants isn't Bitcoin.  Bitcoin lives in diverse niches, deep in the jungles of Asia and swamps of Florida; it cannot be shut down by a few phones calls to some (uninvested/unintersted) NETOPS guys at a few dozen COLO facilities.

What johnyj wants is something I call CoinbaseCoin.  CoinbaseCoin is what we'd get if we prematurely (IE prior to post-fiat Cryptopia) restrict Bitcoin to data centers, ignoring the engineering requirement it be above the law.

When Bitcoin has accomplished its primary mission of disrupting central banking and ensuring Chancellors may no longer consider bailouts for TBTF banks, then we may relegate most full nodes to data centers.

But until we usher in the Golden Age of Satoshi, full nodes must be kept in places where the long arm of the BIS cannot easily reach.

Here we go!  Gavin is Officially supporting CoinbaseCoin.   

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-exchanges-seriously-considering-funding-competitor-gavin-andresen/

Asked about Dash, Andresen states:

“I like the 21-million bitcoin limit. I think it makes sense for there to be a limited, predictable supply of money.

[marcus_of_augustus]

now how many sold-out XT, Classic, UL bulls are now lining up to buy back in 

hope they can afford the fees for when the blocks get full for their rally-chasing purchases

[iCEBREAKER]

https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/710261392927014912

Oh my, that is savage.

Remind me to never get on Bram Cohen's bad side!