ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[rizzlarolla]

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?

Realnxtbitcoin?

Correct, a soft fork is nearly not as dangerous as a hardfork,.

[RealBitcoin]

Correct, a soft fork is nearly not as dangerous as a hardfork,.

Yes, that is true. So what is the problem here? Why is the "nearly" in italic?

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Soft forking is dangerous in general because it does not require the consent and acknowledgement of the entire network. Dramatic changes can be imposed by just a handful of devs and a handful of mining pool operators. The changes they soft fork in today may be OK, but if you establish it as a precedent... there's no telling what could be soft forked in without node operator's consent, or indeed even without them knowing anything had changed at all.

Say segwit is activated by the handful of pool operators, 1500 nodes upgrade to segwit capable software... you're left with 4500 nodes that don't understand and don't validate the signatures of segwit transactions. This bifurcation of capabilities of the node network is something entirely new to Bitcoin.

A hard fork is the only moral way to make serious changes to the Bitcoin protocol. If Core, bitcoin.org, reddit, this forum and everyone else was aware of what was coming, the hard fork would be no problem, altcoins do them all the time, and Bitcoin has even done one (accidentally) on the move from 0.7 to 0.8.

[adamstgBit]

A hard fork is the only moral way to make serious changes to the Bitcoin protocol...

plus fucking one.

[RealBitcoin]

Soft forking is dangerous in general because it does not require the consent and acknowledgement of the entire network.

But it doesnt affect everyone, and it doesnt coerce everyone to uppgrade.

Dramatic changes can be imposed by just a handful of devs and a handful of mining pool operators.

No they cant, plus nobody coerces you to download the new wallet, and if you do you can verify the source code

The changes they soft fork in today may be OK, but if you establish it as a precedent... there's no telling what could be soft forked in without node operator's consent, or indeed even without them knowing anything had changed at all.

But establishing a hardfork as precedent would be totally ok....

Say segwit is activated by the handful of pool operators, 1500 nodes upgrade to segwit capable software... you're left with 4500 nodes that don't understand and don't validate the signatures of segwit transactions. This bifurcation of capabilities of the node network is something entirely new to Bitcoin.

They will uppgrade after they see that its better, and if they dont, i guess the update can be revoked.

But if a hardfork fails, all that flip-flopping will seriously damage the reputation of bitcoin, not to mention the network's stability.

A hard fork is the only moral way to make serious changes to the Bitcoin protocol.

Imposing your will on others is never moral.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Soft forking is dangerous in general because it does not require the consent and acknowledgement of the entire network.

But it doesnt affect everyone, and it doesnt coerce everyone to uppgrade.

Dramatic changes can be imposed by just a handful of devs and a handful of mining pool operators.

No they cant, plus nobody coerces you to download the new wallet, and if you do you can verify the source code

The changes they soft fork in today may be OK, but if you establish it as a precedent... there's no telling what could be soft forked in without node operator's consent, or indeed even without them knowing anything had changed at all.

But establishing a hardfork as precedent would be totally ok....

Say segwit is activated by the handful of pool operators, 1500 nodes upgrade to segwit capable software... you're left with 4500 nodes that don't understand and don't validate the signatures of segwit transactions. This bifurcation of capabilities of the node network is something entirely new to Bitcoin.

They will uppgrade after they see that its better, and if they dont, i guess the update can be revoked.

But if a hardfork fails, all that flip-flopping will seriously damage the reputation of bitcoin, not to mention the network's stability.

A hard fork is the only moral way to make serious changes to the Bitcoin protocol.

Imposing your will on others is never moral.

Mental gymnastics I can't even attempt to match.

I'll leave you to it.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Segwit on it's own solves the transaction malleability problem, thus enabling payment channels and true scaling at Layer 2.

Is that clear enough?  I doubt it's possible to explain this idea using smaller words or a shorter sentence.

2mb, like segwit's ~1.75mb, is also a "slight boost in transaction capacity."  I'm not sure how you've convinced yourself there's a huge "far more effective" difference between their tps increases.

A contentious hard fork is anything but "simple and efficient."  Didn't you notice that at some point during the last year of XT and Klassik debacles?  I guess the phrase "catastrophic consensus failure" is absent from your conceptual database.   

How can you be so sure of yourself and so wrong about the facts?  Are you Mike Hearnia or something?   

Most modern wallets will support segwit, just as they are starting to support RBF.  That's progress, and it didn't require the wallets to be "completely rewritten."

Take your ignorance and malicious falsehoods back to rbtc.  They have no power here.   

[JayJuanGee]

A hard fork is the only moral way to make serious changes to the Bitcoin protocol...

plus fucking one.

I thought that you were getting better, Adam?  


I see that you are relapsing.      



Does anyone know penquin-specific CPR?  

[Lauda]

A hard fork is the only moral way to make serious changes to the Bitcoin protocol...

plus fucking one.

Here's mine:Minus two.

Segwit on it's own solves the transaction malleability problem, thus enabling payment channels and true scaling at Layer 2. 2mb, like segwit's ~1.75mb, is also a "slight boost in transaction capacity."  I'm not sure how you've convinced yourself there's a huge "far more effective" difference between their tps increases.

Segwit has quite a few benefits, while a 2 MB block size limit has none (we can exclude the TPS increase as the both share it). I don't understand why this is so hard perceive. The only people that call out Segwit on its complexity are people who don't really understand code or are half-baked coders. Whoever I've asked previously (as I don't do C++ myself) said that the complexity is overblown by a 'certain group'.

[desired_username]

TIL: most people on forums owned by theymos still believe the lies of Blockstream/Core.

[JayJuanGee]

TIL: most people on forums owned by theymos still believe the lies of Blockstream/Core.

What are the lies, exactly?

The point of the matter is that various proposals were made by XT/Classic, and they failed to achieve consensus in order to be implemented.  What else do you have to believe? 

The other baloney that you refer to supposedly coming from Blocksteam/Core is kind of a tangent argument and even of questionable relevance.. when in fact the XT/Classic folks failed to muster enough support for their position to achieve changes that they were proposing to be needed.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

What are the lies, exactly?

The point of the matter is that various proposals were made by XT/Classic, and they failed to achieve consensus in order to be implemented.  What else do you have to believe? 

The other baloney that you refer to supposedly coming from Blocksteam/Core is kind of a tangent argument and even of questionable relevance.. when in fact the XT/Classic folks failed to muster enough support for their position to achieve changes that they were proposing to be needed.

I don't think anything other than the above can be argued. Classic & XT failed.

[2c0de]

I believe that Classic & XT have a strong point. Segregated Witness, on the other hand suffers from unnecessary brittleness, the engineering problem it solves has a more straightforward and less silly solutions. Imagine the horror that a consensus would not be reached, or reached at a meeting in a wrong country, or maybe even that the consensus would not match the expected, in other words "inherent consensus". This is the misunderstood and not-well-studied Governance Problem. Just Imagine, for a second that Bitcoin is made more effective. We could literally reach visa scale, the orbit, and to reach inter-planetar security, we would transact in a closed-community, a small group of experts who would also have the authority to decide what program and transactions are approved and honest ("Satoshi-approved transactions on Satoshi-made network"), and what constitutes a scam or fraud ("Harmful transactions on an altcoin network"). In this way we could create and amazing system where fraud or scam does not happen, ever, simply because all less-intelligent users got robbed the very moment they use the system their first time.

A smart fridge that feeds you your favorite dishes, and is refilled using periodic food deployment is the promise of the "Smart Contract" technology. Moreover, a soda machines offers instant confirmations. This shall not be underestimated, and represents the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, to the moon!

[RealBitcoin]

a small group of experts who would also have the authority to decide what program and transactions are approved and honest

And who would have that power? You?

Yea lets have 3-4 people ruling over (in the future) 500-600 billion dollars of other people's money and have total control over it. What could go wrong? Your wisdom is astonishing.

The banking system already works this way. Bitcoin is decentralized, doesn't need a central authority.

[franky1]

Bitcoin is decentralized, doesn't need a central authority.

funny how blockstreamers who want market dominance pretend to want decentralization, while trying to push away any outsiders so that only blockstream remain...

someone really needs to shake these blockstreamers to wake them up.. its starting to get beyond a cultish joke now

[2c0de]

a small group of experts who would also have the authority to decide what program and transactions are approved and honest

And who would have that power? You?

Yes. Our banking system has been using Blockchains for decades. You should check yourself before you shrekt yourself. You are no expert and Blockchain will be used, but the currency will be different!!




Who you think you are arguing with mate? I am someone, I have a high level contacts at important too-big-to fail institutions!

[RealBitcoin]

Bitcoin is decentralized, doesn't need a central authority.

funny how blockstreamers who want market dominance pretend to want decentralization, while trying to push away any outsiders so that only blockstream remain...

someone really needs to shake these blockstreamers to wake them up.. its starting to get beyond a cultish joke now

Don't confuse the protection of the decentralized status quo with a monopoly of power.

Since all alternatives to Core are only shameless powergrabs, therefore the monopoly of Core is the decentralized status quo.


Anyone can contribute to the bitcoin code, but the fact that currently Peter Wuille makes ~80% of the code doesn't make him a ruler of bitcoin, it just shows that anyone else is too lazy or lacks the skills to contribute properly to bitcoin and guard the decentralized features of it.

[JayJuanGee]

I believe that Classic & XT have a strong point. Segregated Witness, on the other hand suffers from unnecessary brittleness, the engineering problem it solves has a more straightforward and less silly solutions. Imagine the horror that a consensus would not be reached, or reached at a meeting in a wrong country, or maybe even that the consensus would not match the expected, in other words "inherent consensus". This is the misunderstood and not-well-studied Governance Problem. Just Imagine, for a second that Bitcoin is made more effective. We could literally reach visa scale, the orbit, and to reach inter-planetar security, we would transact in a closed-community, a small group of experts who would also have the authority to decide what program and transactions are approved and honest ("Satoshi-approved transactions on Satoshi-made network"), and what constitutes a scam or fraud ("Harmful transactions on an altcoin network"). In this way we could create and amazing system where fraud or scam does not happen, ever, simply because all less-intelligent users got robbed the very moment they use the system their first time.

A smart fridge that feeds you your favorite dishes, and is refilled using periodic food deployment is the promise of the "Smart Contract" technology. Moreover, a soda machines offers instant confirmations. This shall not be underestimated, and represents the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, to the moon!

Your talking nonsense to propose  various fixes to a system that is not broken.

Bitcoin is not visa/mastercard, and since it is peer to peer, it is likely going to take some time for people and companies to build various subsystems that run on top of bitcoin that will allow various kinds of visa/mastercard level scaleability..

Do you want to go from processing a billion dollars a month to processing more than a trillion, over night, and even go from 200 million daily transactions to 1 trillion daily transactions? 

Sure, bitcoin is going to get there fairly quickly in the whole scheme of things, but it's not going to get there overnight, and we cannot rush such systems and to be sloppy and irresponsible when we are talking about billions of dollars stored on the network and millions of dollars transacted every day. 


Bitcoin is not a company, and no one controls it, and doesn't that seem to be a good thing, rather than what you seem to be proposing, 2cOde.

[JayJuanGee]

a small group of experts who would also have the authority to decide what program and transactions are approved and honest

And who would have that power? You?

Yes. Our banking system has been using Blockchains for decades. You should check yourself before you shrekt yourself. You are no expert and Blockchain will be used, but the currency will be different!!

https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.29528246.1368/papergc,441x415,w,ffffff.2.jpg[/img]


Who you think you are arguing with mate? I am someone, I have a high level contacts at important too-big-to fail institutions!

Well if you "are somebody" and you have "high level contacts", then probably that informs us regarding how dumb are your various centralization ideas.

[Peter R]

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?

Nodes don't need to update all at once with a hard fork either. 

The difference between a soft fork and a hard fork is that a soft fork adds to the rule set whereas a hard fork removes from the rule set.  That's it!  Rolling out a hard fork is like rolling out a soft fork but in reverse.  For a soft-forking change, nodes can upgrade asynchronously after the miners start enforcing a new rule. For a hard-forking change, nodes can upgrade asynchronously before the miners stop enforcing an old rule.

To make it more concrete, here's an example:

WHAT WOULD A SOFT-FORKING CHANGE FROM 2MB BACK TO 1MB LOOK LIKE?

Ans. Miners would coordinate some time in the future, t0, where they agree to no longer build on top of blocks greater than 1MB; that is, at time t = t0 they would enforce a more-restrictive rule set.



Non-mining nodes may elect to enforce the restricted rule set (i.e., begin rejecting blocks greater than 1MB) at any time t >= t0.  However, they CANNOT enforce the restricted rule set for t < t0, without the risk of forking themselves off the network.

WHAT SHOULD A HARD-FORKING CHANGE FROM 1MB TO 2MB LOOK LIKE?

Ans. Miners would coordinate some point in the future, t0, where they agree to build on top of blocks greater than 1MB; that is, at time t = t0 they would enforce a less-restrictive rule set.



Non-mining nodes may elect to stop enforcing the old rule set (i.e., begin accepting blocks greater than 1MB) at any time t <= t0. However, they CANNOT continue to enforce the old rule set for t > t0, without the risk of forking themselves off the network.