ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[JayJuanGee]

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.

An interesting thing about energy; however, which may be a bit of a side-track from the main points that you are making (which I completely agree with your main points, and I appreciate that you have been making them so forcefully and clearly) is that humans are fairly rudimentary in their various developments regarding how to harness energy - and surely some forms of energy are more abundant than others and have fewer costs to harness.   Likely, you are correct that no energy is free, but surely some sources are a hell-of-a lot more free than others and likely lots of discoveries yet to be made in this regard in terms of identifying, implementing and employing economies of scale cost savings, too.

[classicsucks]

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

Well this isn't true at all - Bitcoin is moving at light speed, and we're just along for the ride! 

The Core dev team is trustworthy and they seem to espouse the "open source philosophy" that "the best idea wins", and they engage in spirited discussion about the pros and cons of various technical innovations. This is great, but at the end of the day there are people behind them making political decisions that will effect all of us. For the moment, those people (whoever they are) seem to have Bitcoin's best interest at heart, and they are acting to keep the exchange price up and the network running. I'm fairly certain that the Core team understands that block size increase is a recipe for Bitcoin breaking, even if that isn't well-articulated. For those who have a problem with "limits", compare this with how regulated the global financial system is for you!

I'm glad "Classique" bit the dust for many reasons: it was a coup attempt, it undermined the hard work of core devs, and it caused rifts in the community. Nonetheless we must stay vigilant and always review technical changes to the software and protocol.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Can somebody explain why this thread isn't locked or removed?

[trashman43]

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

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

[squatter]

Can somebody explain why this thread isn't locked or removed?

no thanks. it's probably my favorite thread on the forum. good discussion of implications of forks, theoretical attacks, etc. and great mudslinging!! a good balance to the cesspool that is reddit.

[Luke-Jr]

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

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

[JayJuanGee]

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.

I don't want to get too much in the weeds; however, probably, what you are suggesting would be a bit of an improvement over the status quo, but really there seems to be a broader interest in bitcoin and rights and stakeholding beyond current actual coin holders. 

I mean we have future coin holders, we have past coin holders, we have people who invest in bitcoin through product, services and possibly in other ways such as alt coin contributions that may be absorbed into bitcoin but may not currently hold bitcoins. 

There may be ways to give weighted value to a broader segment of the various bitcoin stake holders beyond actual coin holders even if they do not have actual coins (or many coins) at the moment of an actual poll/vote.

[Luke-Jr]

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.

I don't want to get too much in the weeds; however, probably, what you are suggesting would be a bit of an improvement over the status quo, but really there seems to be a broader interest in bitcoin and rights and stakeholding beyond current actual coin holders. 

I mean we have future coin holders, we have past coin holders, we have people who invest in bitcoin through product, services and possibly in other ways such as alt coin contributions that may be absorbed into bitcoin but may not currently hold bitcoins. 

There may be ways to give weighted value to a broader segment of the various bitcoin stake holders beyond actual coin holders even if they do not have actual coins (or many coins) at the moment of an actual poll/vote.

The ideal would be to imitate the economic consensus of people accepting payment, but I think polling current holders is the closest we can come to this.
Perhaps those who accept payments can opine publicly, and influence the poll through their potential customers?

[hdbuck]

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

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

Sounds awesome, but remember one of the key point of cypherpunk bitcoin is "privacy". Nobody should be forced to take part in some political public demonstration.  Besides, involving google?! wtf man. Why not directly mark the bagholders with some veal blood already?

Also, at what threshold do you consider the "polled stake" view (which may be as high as 99%!! omg) to overcome the whole bitcoins at stake?

[Luke-Jr]

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

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

Sounds awesome, but remember one of the key point of cypherpunk bitcoin is "privacy". Nobody should be forced to take part in some political public demonstration.  Besides, involving google?! wtf man. Why not directly mark the bagholders with some veal blood already?

Also, at what threshold do you consider the "polled stake" view (which may be as high as 99%!! omg) to overcome the whole bitcoins at stake?

Well, the stake poll would be entirely based on the signed messages, so it wouldn't reveal who owns the UTXOs at all.
Admittedly, there might be a privacy concern if you're already de-pseudonymised, but I don't know that there's even a hypothetical way to solve that.

I don't know any way to reach the entire community, and Google ads seems like a reasonable attempt.
It seems like BitcoinTalk and reddit only make up a tiny fraction of people using bitcoins.

I don't understand your last question.

[hdbuck]

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

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

Sounds awesome, but remember one of the key point of cypherpunk bitcoin is "privacy". Nobody should be forced to take part in some political public demonstration.  Besides, involving google?! wtf man. Why not directly mark the bagholders with some veal blood already?

Also, at what threshold do you consider the "polled stake" view (which may be as high as 99%!! omg) to overcome the whole bitcoins at stake?

Well, the stake poll would be entirely based on the signed messages, so it wouldn't reveal who owns the UTXOs at all.
Admittedly, there might be a privacy concern if you're already de-pseudonymised, but I don't know that there's even a hypothetical way to solve that.

I don't know any way to reach the entire community, and Google ads seems like a reasonable attempt.
It seems like BitcoinTalk and reddit only make up a tiny fraction of people using bitcoins.

I don't understand your last question.

Point is there is none. Nobody can ever know nor force anyone to participate in some democracy meme for any other reason than security (such as some encryption broken hardfix, which would require neither a vote nor google ads)

re: my last question: what fraction of the total bitcoin's marketcap stake should the "99% polled stake" be considered enough to commit hardfork?


edit:

Bitcoin, by design, is not democratic. No matter how many times you try and assert that it is, it is not, and it never will be. And it is also not socialist.
Removing all of the fascinating, revolutionary technical details, the core of Bitcoin is that it is voluntary and the transactions and ledger entries made with it are mediated by a computer programme.

You choose, as a free human being, to download the required software, use Bitcoin and be bound by the nework’s fixed rules.

Finally, Bitcoin doesn’t care what you think. It doesn’t care about anything. What you think doesn’t matter; that is the ultimate power of Bitcoin.
The Blockchain is like a force of nature.
You must conform to ethical standards of behaviour in the Blockchain organized world, or starve, since the option of violence is taken off of the table.
The implications of all of this will only become clear once it is too late for the democracy lovers to stop it, who will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened, why democracy died, and crucially, why everything has not fallen apart…

https://medium.com/@beautyon_/bitcoin-is-not-democratic-81f87158250a#.ug1x7grh9


Imho you're beating a dead horse here with the vote thing. Why not move on?

Be free of your 'responsabilises' and roundtable's 'engagement'. Let it be.

[jonny1000]

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?  

I think Garzik is very likely to have his view of the best interests of the system driving his decisions.  I would have said the same about Gavin, except after the CW fiasco I have little conviction as to his intentions.  I think the best  thing would be for him to stop supporting the counterproductive Classic attack for several months and then revaluate.

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.

I agree.  This resilience does exists to some extent and the more resilient the better.  However we must not be drawn into a false sense of security by thinking the system is perfectly resilient in this respect.  This is why I think the actions of the developers in the HK agreement was unfortunately necessary and somewhat justified.

Giving in to such uneducated fools (if I may say) is not going to help anyone..

This is why we should do it form a position of strength.  The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%.  I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB.  However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

[JayJuanGee]

This is why we should do it form a position of strength.  The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%.  I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB.  However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

You've come back to this point several times, and for some reason you seem to really believe that an increase in the physical blocksize limit is actually necessary. 

I have not seen any actual evidence that it is actually necessary, and it does not solve any real world problem to increase the physical blocksize limit while potentially adding more bloat, so why implement a change that is not needed and that also has some downsides including bloat?  except if you happen to believe the loud screams that there is some kind of a real and actual problem

Further seg wit seems to be fairly soon around the corner, and there is likely a certain level of uncertainty regarding how much capacity in practice seg wit is going to cause.... If seg wit is a fairly major change, then why make two changes simultaneously?  Why not just see how seg wit plays out and then let's say that down the road it does become apparent that an actual blocksize limit increase is needed, then yes it could be added at any time that it is actually needed, no?

[billotronic]

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

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

THIS sounds like an alt coin sir and had nothing to do with bitcoin. Bitcoin solves bitcoin within bitcoin.

[Luke-Jr]

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

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

THIS sounds like an alt coin sir and had nothing to do with bitcoin. Bitcoin solves bitcoin within bitcoin.

Hardforks are inherently NOT within Bitcoin. That's why it requires community consensus in the first place.

[jonny1000]

You've come back to this point several times, and for some reason you seem to really believe that an increase in the physical blocksize limit is actually necessary.  

Agreed, its not necessary.  It may be a good idea to help keep fees very low for the next few years.  I do not particularly care about this issue that much, however I do respect some people who think low fees in the short term is very important.

then why make two changes simultaneously?  

It can happen after segwit

[Lauda]

I think Garzik is very likely to have his view of the best interests of the system driving his decisions.  I would have said the same about Gavin, except after the CW fiasco I have little conviction as to his intentions.  I think the best  thing would be for him to stop supporting the counterproductive Classic attack for several months and then revaluate.

Fair point. Even though Garzik was in support of the HF, I didn't see him getting involved much in the 'politics' nor do much coding for Classic (if any at all?). However, he's the sole example.

This is why I think the actions of the developers in the HK agreement was unfortunately necessary and somewhat justified.

You do realize that the people that signed that 'agreement' only represent themselves and nothing more?

This is why we should do it form a position of strength.  The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%.  I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB.  However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

I think that you've got this all wrong and do not realize the type of 'people' that are behind this. Since Maxwell already mentioned shills and whatnot, what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!". Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.
Update:

You seem to miss that there is a difference between respect and blind unthinking obsequiousness.

No.

[AlexGR]

I think that you've got this all wrong and do not realize the type of 'people' that are behind this. Since Maxwell already mentioned shills and whatnot, what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!". Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.

At some point the limit will have to be raised anyway. So, it doesn't matter that much in the greater scheme of things.

Let's not forget that Classic got buried (or #REKT  ) in part as an outcome of the agreement between devs + miners. I don't think an alternative scenario where miners sided with ...classic, would be better - I still remember the market reaction when it was thought that classic was winning because they had all that "support" (real or imaginary).

Core refusing to work for classic usurpers, pow hard forkings, btc getting forked in two with each one proclaiming the "one true btc" and stuff like that. Not very nice eventualities. All said and done, a hf in, say, a year, is not thaaaaat bad of a deal.

[jbreher]

Do you really think that ... most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.

You seem to miss that there is a difference between respect and blind unthinking obsequiousness.

[jonny1000]

You do realize that the people that signed that 'agreement' only represent themselves and nothing more?

Yes

what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!"

That is why we need to mitigate this risk by taking the action only when Classic looks almost totally defeated, with a 12 month grace period, a 95% activation threshold, in two steps (softfork flagging the hardfork, then the hardfork itself) and only to 2MB or smaller.  There is another risk, which is that we avoid doing a hardfork only to avoid the perception that these aggressive inappropriate attack tactics work.

Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers?

The level of stupidity in /r/btc is so severe that I even suspect some small blockist agent provocateurs may be contributing to it.