ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[JayJuanGee]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.

In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.

The mentioned block withholding attack falls under "allowing ... to steal coins" IMO.

I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).

Well, you were there for the actual discussion of the agreement, but it seems very impractical, and even a bad reading of the actual literal agreement to believe that a pursuit of a hardfork would be necessary prior to verifying how seg wit plays out first.. .
I mean, really, seg wit is not even actually live on the network, yet, so isn't it feasible that seg wit could really cause a lot of the points for an actual hard fork to be mute... (at least regarding to a raising of the blocksize limit for some time to come)  and yeah of course, a large number of bitcoin holders would agree that if old coins somehow become more vulnerable due to changes in security or abilities to break cryptography, then those matters are going to be weighed to potentially justify a hardfork rather than a softfork... but also, breaking cryptography is much at the theoretical level, instead of actual demonstrations of such breaks of cryptography occurring, no?

[Luke-Jr]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.

In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.

The mentioned block withholding attack falls under "allowing ... to steal coins" IMO.

I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).

Well, you were there for the actual discussion of the agreement, but it seems very impractical, and even a bad reading of the actual literal agreement to believe that a pursuit of a hardfork would be necessary prior to verifying how seg wit plays out first.. .
I mean, really, seg wit is not even actually live on the network, yet, so isn't it feasible that seg wit could really cause a lot of the points for an actual hard fork to be mute... (at least regarding to a raising of the blocksize limit for some time to come)  and yeah of course, a large number of bitcoin holders would agree that if old coins somehow become more vulnerable due to changes in security or abilities to break cryptography, then those matters are going to be weighed to potentially justify a hardfork rather than a softfork... but also, breaking cryptography is much at the theoretical level, instead of actual demonstrations of such breaks of cryptography occurring, no?

Yes, it was a compromise. I don't see any strong purpose to active pursuit of a hardfork right now, and except that I promised in HK to do so, I otherwise probably wouldn't be.
Of course, nobody else in the community outside of that HK meeting has agreed to do anything, and is free to reject any proposal we come up with.

[JayJuanGee]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.

In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.

The mentioned block withholding attack falls under "allowing ... to steal coins" IMO.

I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).

Well, you were there for the actual discussion of the agreement, but it seems very impractical, and even a bad reading of the actual literal agreement to believe that a pursuit of a hardfork would be necessary prior to verifying how seg wit plays out first.. .
I mean, really, seg wit is not even actually live on the network, yet, so isn't it feasible that seg wit could really cause a lot of the points for an actual hard fork to be mute... (at least regarding to a raising of the blocksize limit for some time to come)  and yeah of course, a large number of bitcoin holders would agree that if old coins somehow become more vulnerable due to changes in security or abilities to break cryptography, then those matters are going to be weighed to potentially justify a hardfork rather than a softfork... but also, breaking cryptography is much at the theoretical level, instead of actual demonstrations of such breaks of cryptography occurring, no?

Yes, it was a compromise. I don't see any strong purpose to active pursuit of a hardfork right now, and except that I promised in HK to do so, I otherwise probably wouldn't be.
Of course, nobody else in the community outside of that HK meeting has agreed to do anything, and is free to reject any proposal we come up with.

Sure, it is quite valuable that folks take their agreements seriously, and follow - up to the extent that it seems to be justified to engage in such follow-ups.  And, I understand that has been your attempt, which is appreciated (at least by some of us in the space).  You personally, have to come to those kinds of decision regarding whether you believe that you have done your due diligence, and no matter what (since you are in the public eye), you are going to receive criticism for your various positions and the justifications that you find important for such.

On the other hand, I think that a lot of folks are fairly excited to see how seg wit actually plays out.. when it does actually go live.  It's one thing to theorize that something is going to go live, but likely yet another thing to find out how various developers are going to put it into play (likely in even unexpected ways) once it actually goes live and some time passes with it being live and developed upon.

[hdbuck]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.

In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.

The mentioned block withholding attack falls under "allowing ... to steal coins" IMO.

I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).

Well, you were there for the actual discussion of the agreement, but it seems very impractical, and even a bad reading of the actual literal agreement to believe that a pursuit of a hardfork would be necessary prior to verifying how seg wit plays out first.. .
I mean, really, seg wit is not even actually live on the network, yet, so isn't it feasible that seg wit could really cause a lot of the points for an actual hard fork to be mute... (at least regarding to a raising of the blocksize limit for some time to come)  and yeah of course, a large number of bitcoin holders would agree that if old coins somehow become more vulnerable due to changes in security or abilities to break cryptography, then those matters are going to be weighed to potentially justify a hardfork rather than a softfork... but also, breaking cryptography is much at the theoretical level, instead of actual demonstrations of such breaks of cryptography occurring, no?

Yes, it was a compromise. I don't see any strong purpose to active pursuit of a hardfork right now, and except that I promised in HK to do so, I otherwise probably wouldn't be.
Of course, nobody else in the community outside of that HK meeting has agreed to do anything, and is free to reject any proposal we come up with.

Promise & Compromise. I feel you bro. Good luck with that.

[Lauda]

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

I've forgot to reply to this last night. This is exactly what makes Bitcoin so great. It is supposed to be very hard to change.

I`m not talking about the theymos paper, but about the bitcoin classic people that want a more invasive approach.

I understand that.

BTW Wtf is all with this quantum computer bullshit scaremongering? Do you guys realize that there wont be a quantum computer for the foreseeable future. And in my opinion there wont be any ever.

1) As far as weakened encryption is concerned, the reason doesn't have to be a quantum computer.
2) There are already quantum computers, they're just slow and contain a small amount of qubits.
3) Making an opinion/trying to discuss something != "scaremongering".

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Are you talking about things from the HF wishlist (Wiki)? What would you prefer to be included in a HF?

[RealBitcoin]

1) As far as weakened encryption is concerned, the reason doesn't have to be a quantum computer.
2) There are already quantum computers, they're just slow and contain a small amount of qubits.
3) Making an opinion/trying to discuss something != "scaremongering".

1) Yes that is true, normal supercomputers can become more efficient and dangerous at some point. But I`m just telling that everyone is scaremongering about the quantum computers which are a so remote idea that a meteor hitting earth might be a bigger concern.

2) And then cant scale it up, because the entropy of the universe is too big for building it further. Qubits can only form in vacuum and at 0 degrees kelvin. The best they came up with was near 0 degree and they can only put together a few qubits because any tiny energy interference just collapses the entire buildup like a house of cards. You can't isolate the setup 100% from outside interference, it's impossible. Tons of neutrinos are bombarding the earth every milisecond, they pass through solid matter and emit radiation, not to mention the background radiation that has so big wavelength that can pass through anything. You build a qubit setup and a piece if particle just teleports right inside the setup emitting energy and the entire qubit system collapses. Quantum mechanics is a very complex science and I have read a lot upon it, and from what I can tell those that say that a functional quantum computer is possible, are either scaremongers or they are scammers trying to fool people.

3) Well yes, but after many many threads discussing it, and articles coming up on reddit about it all the time, at some point it looks like FUD. I believe there are bigger priorities than this.

[hdbuck]

aww.. AWS free trials terminated. 




#R3kt

[Lauda]

1) Yes that is true, normal supercomputers can become more efficient and dangerous at some point. But I`m just telling that everyone is scaremongering about the quantum computers which are a so remote idea that a meteor hitting earth might be a bigger concern.

2) And then cant scale it up, because the entropy of the universe is too big for building it further. Qubits can only form in vacuum and at 0 degrees kelvin. The best they came up with was near 0 degree and they can only put together a few qubits because any tiny energy interference just collapses the entire buildup like a house of cards. You can't isolate the setup 100% from outside interference, it's impossible.

3) Well yes, but after many many threads discussing it, and articles coming up on reddit about it all the time, at some point it looks like FUD. I believe there are bigger priorities than this.

1) A flaw could be discovered in the encryption or a way to calculate much faster (as an example).
2) People said that a lot of things were impossible, and look where we are now. I'd rather not rely on speculation (if you know what I mean).
3) Sure, some of them are FUD attempts but surely not from theymos.

aww.. AWS free trials terminated. 

#R3kt

Nothing surprising there; it was just a matter of time.  They are now down to just 867 nodes according to this website. I've been banning every single Classic peer from my own node as I don't want to waste bandwidth on AWS.

[RealBitcoin]

1) A flaw could be discovered in the encryption or a way to calculate much faster (as an example).
2) People said that a lot of things were impossible, and look where we are now. I'd rather not rely on speculation (if you know what I mean).
3) Sure, some of them are FUD attempts but surely not from theymos.

1) Yes that is possible, but that doesnt need a quantum computer to happen. Many mathematicians are cryptographers and test the functions all the time, so if there is a weakness in the bitcoin encryption, it could pose a danger. But we have no evidence of such things for now. So at this points it's a hypothesis, and has nothing to do with QC.

2) Yea but this is like the limit of technology we are poking here. Manipulating quantum systems is way too much power anyone can have. If it's possible then those people will get godly powers, and at that point bitcoin would be the least of our concerns. Like imagine if teleportation of complex matter (humans) were possible, how would that change the human society? Anyone can just teleport inside anyones house and rob it...

QM says that teleportation is possible, but the difficulty scales up exponentially as the matter gets more complex, therefore the probability tends towards zero.

The same thing with QC, the probability of a more complex QC with more qubits decreases exponentially, and probably the 5-6 qubit setup is the limit people can achieve, maybe a few more, but definitely not giga setups.

3) I never said it was from him. It's coming from some random reddit and forum users.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).

Here is a patch

4701   Do
4702   Re
4703   Mi
4704   Fa
4705   So
4706   La
4707   Ti
4708   Do

[QuestionAuthority]

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Are you talking about things from the HF wishlist (Wiki)? What would you prefer to be included in a HF?

I think what Luke Jr wants to be included is a small Christian prayer written into every block and every seven days all the worlds mining resources diverted to attack an altcoin.

[BitUsher]

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Are you talking about things from the HF wishlist (Wiki)? What would you prefer to be included in a HF?

I think what Luke Jr wants to be included is a small Christian prayer written into every block and every seven days all the worlds mining resources diverted to attack an altcoin.

Great Sidechain proposal to implement with Rootstock and merge mining.

[QuestionAuthority]

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Are you talking about things from the HF wishlist (Wiki)? What would you prefer to be included in a HF?

I think what Luke Jr wants to be included is a small Christian prayer written into every block and every seven days all the worlds mining resources diverted to attack an altcoin.

Great Sidechain proposal to implement with Rootstock and merge mining.

You could do it that way but I think he'll just put it in without telling anyone.

[jonny1000]

Over and over, the concrete evidence shows that the hardfork at all cost push comes largely from shills, conmen, and their victims.

It looks like Classic/XT may be defeated.  However, let’s try to be as gracious and respectful as we can in our victory.  At least some of the Classic/XT advocates did genuinely have Bitcoin’s best interests at heart, we just disagreed with their methods, we need to still respect them.    Gaining this victory was vital, it demonstrated the rules of the system are resilient, but at the same time weaknesses were exposed in the process.

We need to recognize that the system is not perfect, it is not totally robust and there was (and still is) a genuine risk of a Classic victory.   Therefore it is potentially possible to eliminate an existing protocol rule without strong consensus, in some circumstances. However, hopefully this whole saga has demonstrated that the rules are resilient enough for many practical circumstances.  Recognizing this imperfection, I think we should, from a position of strength, be pragmatic, and as a sign of respect for those people who have hopefully been defeated, implement a change in the limit to 2MB, consistent with the HK agreement.

It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit. They're now struggling to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of upholding their agreement (even though it was made under duress and even though f2pool immediately violated it) while obeying their personal convictions and without losing the respect of the technical community.

It is unfortunate that to some it appears as if the miners forced this agreement by duress.  I was at the meeting and your criticism is fair in many respects.  However, we must accept the reality that Bitcoin is not a perfect system and the agreement did occur, had this not happened then Classic may well have activated by now.  I think we need to be pragmatic and to some extent accept the unfortunate reality that the actions of the "dipshits" were necessary.

[hdbuck]

People can have as many 'agreements' as they wish, Bitcoin ain't moving an inch.

[Lauda]

At least some of the Classic/XT advocates did genuinely have Bitcoin’s best interests at heart, we just disagreed with their methods, we need to still respect them.  

Exactly who might those be? Hearn, Gavin, maybe Toomin?  

Gaining this victory was vital, it demonstrated the rules of the system are resilient, but at the same time weaknesses were exposed in the process.

One of the fundamental points of Bitcoin is this very resilience.

Therefore it is potentially possible to eliminate and existing protocol rule without strong consensus, in some circumstances.

Elaborate?

Recognizing this imperfection, I think we should, from a position of strength, be pragmatic, and as a sign of respect for those people who have hopefully been defeated, implement a change in the limit to 2MB, consistent with the HK agreement.

Disagree. Their support has gone beyond disagreeing with views to just being irrational about everything regardless of evidence presented (either their way or none). Giving in to such uneducated fools (if I may say) is not going to help anyone. While I might not be necessarily against a 2 MB block size limit (only after the validation time is down to O(n)), I disagree with trying to either push for it now, or impose additional limitations as Classic did.

People can have as many 'agreements' as they wish, Bitcoin ain't moving an inch.

This.

[RealBitcoin]

One of the fundamental points of Bitcoin is this very resilience.

Bitcoin is only as strong as it's weakest link. And in this i refer to the community, if many people drag bitcoin down then it will be weak.

We need more exemplary people in bitcoin who can lead by example not by sword.

[btcusury]

You do realize that it is most likely that you would have lost your coins in either case since this is about weakened encryption? There's just a difference between the community drawing out to a consensus in which coins get "destroyed" or a hacker exploiting the weakened encryption only to take away your coins. You'd have to choose the lesser of two evils.

What an idiotic thing to say. You're still ranting about how your bitcoind 0.7 won't sync?

This is a completely separate issue from Theymos' call to preemptively destroy old coins sent to pub key before dastardly haxors grab them with their quantum computers.

I`m not talking about the theymos paper, but about the bitcoin classic people that want a more invasive approach.



BTW Wtf is all with this quantum computer bullshit scaremongering? Do you guys realize that there wont be a quantum computer for the foreseeable future. And in my opinion there wont be any ever.

The best there is is a 5 qubit setup (which can barely do basic calculations), at near 0 Kelvin degree, and the quantum interference scales up exponentially with the heat.

Therefore the difficulty of putting together a more qubit setup  scales exponentially, since the heat entropy will just make the setup crash as any small heat fluctuation will just make the quantum state decohere.

How are you cooling the atoms down to 0 Kelvin? Its literally impossible, and if nothing else, then the background radiation of the universe will just destroy any entangled state eventually. It will be impossoble to built complex qubit setups.

Not even the intergalactic vaacum of the universe is 0 Kelvin, or close to it, so how do you reach that on Earth with all the radiation that is going on here?

In my opinion there wont be ever a quantum computer, but even if it will be, its not in the near future, so folks really need to stup this quantum scaremongering.

You are operating under a number of assumptions, first and foremost the idea that that which is released publically ("the best there is") is where the technology really is at. The way I perceive it, quantum coherence and quantum computers will lead to free energy, and may already have under the dark budget of the secret space program.

There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.

Are you talking about things from the HF wishlist (Wiki)? What would you prefer to be included in a HF?

I think what Luke Jr wants to be included is a small Christian prayer written into every block and every seven days all the worlds mining resources diverted to attack an altcoin.

The nice thing about that is that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't mix his religious convictions with his vision for Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin is only as strong as it's weakest link. And in this i refer to the community, if many people drag bitcoin down then it will be weak.

I do agree with this. Bitcoin as a system is practically unbreakable (it does have some attack vectors though) if we leave humans out (as in control over mining, development and such) of the equation (assuming there are machines serving as miners and as nodes). Humans are the main weak point in this system. Don't some people realize just how XT and now Classic have shifted the idea of taking control over our money, decentralization and whatnot to the idea of "fighting" over 'implementations'? If you think about it, in order to achieve what was originally wanted (from this perspective) Bitcoin does not need some sort of 'rush' (sacrificing some aspects partially to achieve that goal) that will enable as many people as possible to use the system at all times.
Tl;dr: I'm glad that the Classic chapter is over and that we can focus on more important matters and prepare for the next controversial HF (maybe Bitcoin Reloaded?).

[RealBitcoin]

You are operating under a number of assumptions, first and foremost the idea that that which is released publically ("the best there is") is where the technology really is at. The way I perceive it, quantum coherence and quantum computers will lead to free energy, and may already have under the dark budget of the secret space program.

Oh it's about UFO's i didn't knew that

But seriously, what i`m saying is not because there is some secret conspiracy that has alien or very advanced technology. I just simply stated that technology has a limit, and humans are not omnipotent and never will be. Too much holywood movies make people's imaginations take over their rational brain, and think that humanity is capable of everything if it puts it's mind to. This is false, humans are very limited, stupid creatures, with irrational beliefs, even the high IQ people.

There isn't and never will be free energy. The entropy of the universe is growing as it is expanding, it is very unlikely that these concepts are physically possible.