ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[chopstick]

Next drama in sight... because bitcoin isnt funny without fud and division.

The idea behind Classic is useless at the moment. Why would someone opt for a solution that does something in a certain way, when there's a solution (segwit) that does it in a much better way and comes with additional benefits? It does seem like we can't really take a break from the drama. Seems like the community constantly jumps from one thing to another.

Hate to dig up this old reply, but man I can't believe you actually consider segwit (on it's own) to be a solution to anything.

It's just a re-arrangement of information in the blocks, an accounting trick that is overly-complicated just to get a slight boost in transaction capacity. 2mb would be far more effective, simple and efficient. And that's what bitcoin needs right now - simple efficiency, not overly complicated solutions that require every single wallet's code to be completely rewritten just for one change to work.

[JayJuanGee]

Next drama in sight... because bitcoin isnt funny without fud and division.

The idea behind Classic is useless at the moment. Why would someone opt for a solution that does something in a certain way, when there's a solution (segwit) that does it in a much better way and comes with additional benefits? It does seem like we can't really take a break from the drama. Seems like the community constantly jumps from one thing to another.

Hate to dig up this old reply, but man I can't believe you actually consider segwit (on it's own) to be a solution to anything.

It's just a re-arrangement of information in the blocks, an accounting trick that is overly-complicated just to get a slight boost in transaction capacity. 2mb would be far more effective, simple and efficient. And that's what bitcoin needs right now - simple efficiency, not overly complicated solutions that require every single wallet's code to be completely rewritten just for one change to work.

Shill harder

Certainly, I am no technical expert, but you really sound like a layman coming at this problem from a perspective that has been marketed to you... and you are trying to suggest that there is some simple solution blah blah blah.. and that really is not the case.. From my understanding, increasing blocksize limits is not simple because it has a variety of negative effects, not necessary and does not contain merely "upside" as you seem to imply.

In some sense,  shouldn't we give some deference to some of the technical people on this, and there is no dispute coming from them regarding the brilliance of seg wit...?   They all agree that seg wit is a great solution to a variety of bitcoin issues, even Gavin and Garzik and maybe even Hearnia (though I am speculating about whether he was agreeable about anything in his final bought out days of fame)

[chopstick]

2mb would be practically harmless. There is no real immediate downside from such a small increase.. and it does not require wallet code to be rewritten on every platform. It is certainly better than letting blocks get consistently full @1mb, dissuading new bitcoin companies from opening up their doors because BTC can't scale, and pricing hundreds of users off the network, or causing their transactions to take 2-3 days in some cases, not to mention contributing to the rise of altcoins.

At this point, we don't know when segwit will be ready. I'm all for having both, but there is no reason to keep stalling for changes that could be made immediately. People are dropping off the network left and right, and I'm afraid that the serious stall tactics combined with a lack of any leadership whatsoever in the BTC space is going to continue to cause increasingly compounding problems.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

2mb would be practically harmless. There is no real immediate downside from such a small increase.. and it does not require wallet code to be rewritten on every platform. It is certainly better than letting blocks get consistently full @1mb, dissuading new bitcoin companies from opening up their doors because BTC can't scale, and pricing hundreds of users off the network, or causing their transactions to take 2-3 days in some cases, not to mention contributing to the rise of altcoins.

At this point, we don't know when segwit will be ready. I'm all for having both, but there is no reason to keep stalling for changes that could be made immediately. People are dropping off the network left and right, and I'm afraid that the serious stall tactics combined with a lack of any leadership whatsoever in the BTC space is going to continue to cause increasingly compounding problems.

You're starting with the premise that Core/Blockstream doesn't want full blocks and bidding wars for fees. The sooner you disabuse yourself of that notion, the better, this is exactly what they wanted all along.

[paulh691]

lack of scaling to 2MB now mean bitcoin price is plunging
just at the time it needs to make up for the reward drop in 49 days

[chopstick]

No, I'm well aware of Core's intentions to create an artificial fee market years ahead of time before it is necessary.

Well, it's obviously going to backfire. BTC price is about to drop hard in July, and many mining operations may very well become unprofitable. People will demand answers... why the FUCK aren't we scaling yet while Eth is rising?

On the plus side, network difficulty will go down and maybe home mining will become a little more viable again when the Chinese are forced to shut off half their miners...

[Lauda]

It's just a re-arrangement of information in the blocks, an accounting trick that is overly-complicated just to get a slight boost in transaction capacity. 2mb would be far more effective, simple and efficient. And that's what bitcoin needs right now - simple efficiency, not overly complicated solutions that require every single wallet's code to be completely rewritten just for one change to work.

Anyone who calls something as beneficial as Segwit a 'overly-complicated accounting trick' or 'accounting trick' in general can't be taken serious. Almost every single developer in the ecosystem appreciates/approves the development. The main idea behind Segwit is not capacity either.

2mb would be practically harmless.

Until someone sends a block that takes too long to validate.

There is no real immediate downside from such a small increase..

There is, and it is called a hard fork.

dissuading new bitcoin companies from opening up their doors because BTC can't scale, and pricing hundreds of users off the network, or causing their transactions to take 2-3 days in some cases, not to mention contributing to the rise of altcoins.

Just hyperbolic nonsense. All those altcoins suffer from the same problems (unless they're centralized or weakened by other means).

lack of scaling to 2MB now mean bitcoin price is plunging

Hovering between $440 and $450 == plunging? Sound logic indeed.

[RealBitcoin]

No, I'm well aware of Core's intentions to create an artificial fee market years ahead of time before it is necessary.

Well, it's obviously going to backfire. BTC price is about to drop hard in July, and many mining operations may very well become unprofitable. People will demand answers... why the FUCK aren't we scaling yet while Eth is rising?

On the plus side, network difficulty will go down and maybe home mining will become a little more viable again when the Chinese are forced to shut off half their miners...

Artificial fee market? What is artificial about it. Its a 'free' market, if you want priority you have to pay, that is how everything goes in life.

You have to pay for quality. Now I agree that the capacity has to be increased, everyone agrees, but not at the detriment of the system.

Hard fork is not an option, because it puts bitcoin in danger. So whatever other solutions we have, we will use to make bitcoin more scaleable.

Sidechains, little bit centralized (but transparent) money collectors like Xapo and similar services. We can use even smart contract enhanced transactions.

Yes I dont think small tipings or faucet users need to waste the bitcoin capacity, those transactions can easily be shipped in a sidechain to make room for the big transactions.

[chopstick]

No, I'm well aware of Core's intentions to create an artificial fee market years ahead of time before it is necessary.

Well, it's obviously going to backfire. BTC price is about to drop hard in July, and many mining operations may very well become unprofitable. People will demand answers... why the FUCK aren't we scaling yet while Eth is rising?

On the plus side, network difficulty will go down and maybe home mining will become a little more viable again when the Chinese are forced to shut off half their miners...

Artificial fee market? What is artificial about it. Its a 'free' market, if you want priority you have to pay, that is how everything goes in life.

You have to pay for quality. Now I agree that the capacity has to be increased, everyone agrees, but not at the detriment of the system.

Hard fork is not an option, because it puts bitcoin in danger. So whatever other solutions we have, we will use to make bitcoin more scaleable.

Sidechains, little bit centralized (but transparent) money collectors like Xapo and similar services. We can use even smart contract enhanced transactions.

Yes I dont think small tipings or faucet users need to waste the bitcoin capacity, those transactions can easily be shipped in a sidechain to make room for the big transactions.

It is artificial because it is not necessary at the point we're at right now. The intention was never to keep the blocksize capped at 1mb forever. So yes, it is artificial. Creating a fee market this early in the game is not conducive to the widespread mainstream adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. Your average layman user does not understand these things. They need to be able to transact without having to guesstimate what fee they should pay, lest their transaction end up stuck for three days. A fee market is something we should think about after the block reward has gone through several more halvings, not during a phase when we need more adoption and more users (and thus restricting user's ability to even use the network).

How many businesses are passing up the Bitcoin space right now because they know it can't scale? Too many. Stalling this long has deleterious consequences.

[chopstick]

Lauda, I'm not saying that Segwit won't have its advantages. But it needs to be deployed alongside an increase in the hardcap limit on the blocksize. Multiple solutions are better than one.

Also, I'm sorry that you've dismissed what's currently happening as "hyperbolic nonsense," which is an extremely foolish position to take. Just look at the rise of ethereum. It would not have been possible without bitcoin's lack of  leadership and the unwillingness to implement sensible scaling solutions.

[RealBitcoin]

It is artificial because it is not necessary at the point we're at right now. The intention was never to keep the blocksize capped at 1mb forever. So yes, it is artificial. Creating a fee market this early in the game is not conducive to the widespread mainstream adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. Your average layman user does not understand these things. They need to be able to transact without having to guesstimate what fee they should pay, lest their transaction end up stuck for three days. A fee market is something we should think about after the block reward has gone through several more halvings, not during a phase when we need more adoption and more users (and thus restricting user's ability to even use the network).

How many businesses are passing up the Bitcoin space right now because they know it can't scale? Too many. Stalling this long has deleterious consequences.

It is as it is now, this is the path bitcoin has come down to.

And doing hardforks is very foolish and irresponsible now. All the hackers in the world await a vulnerability and if bitcoin lets its guard down it will be destroyed.

Pushing a hardfork in would be the biggest vulterability bitcoin can ever have. So any sane minded person is opposing hardfork.


But any softfork alternative ideas are welcome.

[Lauda]

Lauda, I'm not saying that Segwit won't have its advantages.

Correction: It has its advantages.

But it needs to be deployed alongside an increase in the hardcap limit on the blocksize. Multiple solutions are better than one.

The block size limit increase is not a solution/improvement, it is a workaround. Besides, that's just a difference in opinion. You think that, while other people think otherwise?

Also, I'm sorry that you've dismissed what's currently happening as "hyperbolic nonsense," which is an extremely foolish position to take. Just look at the rise of ethereum. It would not have been possible without bitcoin's lack of  leadership and the unwillingness to implement sensible scaling solutions.

So you people really think that ETH is rising because of BTC not being able to process more TX's?

[chopstick]

So you people really think that ETH is rising because of BTC not being able to process more TX's?

Not necessarily because BTC can't process more TX's, but you cannot deny that the overall uncertainty, fear and chaos which has enveloped the BTC space in recent months did not contribute greatly to their rise. Ethereum played off bitcoin's uncertainty quite well. As I said earlier, a lack of leadership and willingness to act helped make it possible.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

...
On the plus side, network difficulty will go down and maybe home mining will become a little more viable again when the Chinese are forced to shut off half their miners...

Unless you live next to the hydro dam and get 3 cent kWh power… I don’t see home BTC mining surviving this. The big industrial ops with their own chips will be the last ones standing.

Besides, mining alts with GPUs is WAY more profitable now, and the hardware doesn’t become completely worthless like aging ASICs do.

So you people really think that ETH is rising because of BTC not being able to process more TX's?

Not necessarily because BTC can't process more TX's, but you cannot deny that the overall uncertainty, fear and chaos which has enveloped the BTC space in recent months did not contribute greatly to their rise. Ethereum played off bitcoin's uncertainty quite well. As I said earlier, a lack of leadership and willingness to act helped make it possible.

ETH # of TX


I don't think it's a coincidence that ETH market cap and # of tx began to explode right around when BTC hit its 1MB cap.

Investors think about the future, not just today. They aren't all that worried that BTC tx's cost 5 cents to 25 cents today... but that potential for growth is capped, and the current dev team seems very likely to drag their feet as long as they possibly can without miners forking them off. It's easier to just jump ledgers than bang your head repeatedly against a wall trying to explain this to the mini block cultists, and they've been rewarded handsomely for doing so.

[JayJuanGee]

There is no real immediate downside from such a small increase..

There is, and it is called a hard fork.

First, I absolutely believe that an increase in the blocksize limit is not necessary, at least in the next six months and before seeing somethings about how seg wit plays out, after seg wit goes live.

However, I thought that almost all non-emergency changes to bitcoin's protocol can be achieved by soft-forks?  In other words, I don't understand why a hardfork would be necessary, if the only change was to increase the blocksize limit from 1mb to 2mb.

[hv_]

So you people really think that ETH is rising because of BTC not being able to process more TX's?

Not necessarily because BTC can't process more TX's, but you cannot deny that the overall uncertainty, fear and chaos which has enveloped the BTC space in recent months did not contribute greatly to their rise. Ethereum played off bitcoin's uncertainty quite well. As I said earlier, a lack of leadership and willingness to act helped make it possible.

Good spoken.
And good leadership will end up in unifying all groups + needed solutions incl HF and Big and Thin  blocks and SW....!

[WhatsBitcoin]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/

 

[rizzlarolla]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/

 

Which blockstream Core members are the next Mike hearns?   

[rizzlarolla]

It is artificial because it is not necessary at the point we're at right now. The intention was never to keep the blocksize capped at 1mb forever. So yes, it is artificial. Creating a fee market this early in the game is not conducive to the widespread mainstream adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. Your average layman user does not understand these things. They need to be able to transact without having to guesstimate what fee they should pay, lest their transaction end up stuck for three days. A fee market is something we should think about after the block reward has gone through several more halvings, not during a phase when we need more adoption and more users (and thus restricting user's ability to even use the network).

How many businesses are passing up the Bitcoin space right now because they know it can't scale? Too many. Stalling this long has deleterious consequences.

It is as it is now, this is the path bitcoin has come down to.

And doing hardforks is very foolish and irresponsible now. All the hackers in the world await a vulnerability and if bitcoin lets its guard down it will be destroyed.

Pushing a hardfork in would be the biggest vulterability bitcoin can ever have. So any sane minded person is opposing hardfork.


But any softfork alternative ideas are welcome.

So lets change everything else instead, in the form of (properly) untested segwit. duh.

[RealBitcoin]

So lets change everything else instead, in the form of (properly) untested segwit. duh.

A softfork is nearly not as dangerous as a hardfork.

Nodes doesnt need to update all at once, so people will have time to safely update and if some error happens they can signal it instantly.

So if 10-20% update instantly, then the other 80% will have time for feedback and they will update later.


But if you force a hardfork that needs 100% update, so if an error happens, the entire network collapses.

Are you are troll or simply that ignorant to not understand that?