ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[RealBitcoin]

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.

Thats only half true, and what is half true is not true at all.

You missed out the critical point that a hardfork is essentially an altcoin. And for it to become bitcoin 2.0, it has to shift all 6 billion dollars into it.

The moment you make the hardfork you have 2 chains, one with 0 $ value and one with 6 billion, and that money has to travel from 1 place to the other.

And classic people want that to happen in 1 month, forced. Well its pretty hard to force people to move 6 billion over 1 month to a completely uncertain enviroment.

Bitcoin also lacks a dispute resolution system, so if the miners later change their minds about hardfork and revert, it can be a chaos.

A total chaos, where miners would not know which chain is the real one, as the 'highest difficulty' rule would not matter anymore.

Miners would have to guess the sentiment of the people and which one people want most and it would be a nightmare if it gets out of control.

Best case scenario would be that 6 billion $ would split into 2 coins (probably not evenly), worse case would be a total collapse and all that money would go back into fiat, as big whales would sell in panic.

Not to mention potential 51% attacks and other nastyness in the meantime...

It would be the end of bitcoin.

[1714935068]

1714935068

[1714935068]

1714935068

[1714935068]

1714935068

[pbleak]

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

Don't be silly, there are few places where you can get detailed arguments re: Bitcoin as in here.

[marcus_of_augustus]

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

... blockstreamers ... blockstream remain...

... blockstreamers ... blah-de-blah... cultish joke ...

the only people using such rhetoric/propaganda are the two time major losers from the XT/crassic bubble cult.

[franky1]

trying to put people that want logical capcaity increase into XT/classic bubble is the failing of a blockstreamer pretending they themselves are not in a cult.
trying to say people that want a hard fork are altcoiners.. are usually the failings of people that love altcoins themselves.

i still laugh at you blind believers saying 2mb is bad, yet the over 5mb of blockstream roadmap features is good..

its easy to see the blockstream faith because they really do fail at using latin in their posts or footers.

wait for it..
in the next 48 hours a blockstreamer will have to use latin somewhere to try to act like they know something..

[marcus_of_augustus]

trying to put people that want logical capcaity increase into a cult bubble is the failing of a blockstreamer pretending they themselves are not in a cult.
trying to say people that want a hard fork are altcoiners.. are usually the failings of people that love altcoins themselves.

yet its easy to see the blockstream faith because they really do fail at using latin in their posts or footers.

wait for it..
in the next 48 hours a blockstreamer will have to use latin somewhere to try to act like they know something..

i read your words (once) and have no clue what you are trying to say

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Geniuses over in cypherdefendant's support group forum screaming FUD at johnny100 because they don't see how "750 of last 1000" Classic activation prevents activation at "800 of last 1000".

Let's count together:

1,2,3,4, ..... 747,748,749,800!  See, it's possible!!!

[chopstick]

Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Bitcoin Block Size Increase Hard Fork

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753


Now it's time for Core to show that they can be democratic and to make a compromise and give something the community clearly wants - a blocksize increase, alongside Segwit/LN. If Core can't even do this, then they will just further prove their own incompetence.

[hdbuck]

Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Bitcoin Block Size Increase Hard Fork

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753


Now it's time for Core to show that they can be democratic and to make a compromise and give something the community clearly wants - a blocksize increase, alongside Segwit/LN. If Core can't even do this, then they will just further prove their own incompetence.

Bitcoin is neither democratic, nor a compromise. Sorrayy.

[rizzlarolla]

Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Bitcoin Block Size Increase Hard Fork

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753


Now it's time for Core to show that they can be democratic and to make a compromise and give something the community clearly wants - a blocksize increase, alongside Segwit/LN. If Core can't even do this, then they will just further prove their own incompetence.

And if Core do this under duress, their hand being called,
Can Core then still claim competence?

^ incompetence?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Antpool Will Not Run SegWit Without Bitcoin Block Size Increase Hard Fork

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

blah-de-l;ah.. and to make a compromise and give something the community clearly wants - a blocksize increase

just give it up with this "what the community wants" bullshit ... it didn't work then and it won't work now, in fact it turns a lot of people off from your cause (w/e that is)

You don't speak for anybody except your self-interested, greedy little selves. As it ever has been.

[chopstick]

LOL... because wanting on-chain scaling while blocks are full is some-how a "greedy self-interest", what a joke

I think most people want bitcoin to be able to scale rather than lose users. And that's what's happening right now, people are switching to alts while Core flounders about like a chicken with it's head cut off. 

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

This turned out well.

[marcus_of_augustus]

LOL... because wanting on-chain scaling while blocks are full is some-how a "greedy self-interest", what a joke

I didn't say anything about bitcoin scaling, that's precisely your problem, you are projecting your greedy self-interests onto everybody ... and then calling yourself a 'community' that is demanding something from other people.

Get past yourself and stop speaking for everybody else .... and you might start to get what you want.

[chopstick]

Lol, there are literally hundreds of people calling for  a blocksize increase. And unless you are wearing blinders, it is obviously needed so we can scale at the present moment. Blocks are full and bitcoin is hurting while tx's and users are being kicked off the network. What about that do you not understand?

It is not a greedy self-interest. That does not even make sense. It is an obviously needed change for the good of the bitcoin network.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Lol, there are literally hundreds of people calling for  a blocksize increase. And unless you are wearing blinders, it is obviously needed so we can scale at the present moment. Blocks are full and bitcoin is hurting while tx's and users are being kicked off the network. What about that do you not understand?

It is not a greedy self-interest. That does not even make sense. It is an obviously needed change for the good of the bitcoin network.

... yeah, as I thought, people like you are pretty hopelessly beyond help at this point, so even some helpful hints are just going to be falling on deaf ears.

You have become the epitome of the character in your avatar ... however the current object of your obsession is not bitcoin but something as unobtainable and vaguely defined as "scaling" of a p2p value network protocol. This is the thing about obsessively destructive personalities the objects of their obsession become more and more unobtainable, like "a ring to rule them all".

Hundreds 'calling for a blocksize increase" and thousands expending real resource on running full nodes 24/7 supporting status-quo for now. How's your maths? Calculate this, 1+1=time to stfu, until you know yourself better and exactly what it is that you are petulantly demanding from others.

[AlexGR]

Blocks are full

We've been hearing this since last year. What happened that "blocks are full"? Some were making prophecies of doom, destruction, crashes, etc etc, yet nothing happened and price doubled - despite the FUDstorm and fork threats.

At most a bit of spam was replaced with a few more legit txs and that was the end of the story.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Lol, there are literally hundreds of people calling for  a blocksize increase. And unless you are wearing blinders, it is obviously needed so we can scale at the present moment. Blocks are full and bitcoin is hurting while tx's and users are being kicked off the network. What about that do you not understand?

It is not a greedy self-interest. That does not even make sense. It is an obviously needed change for the good of the bitcoin network.

You left out the part where the $0.04 USD fee that today guarantees inclusion in the next block is dragging bitcoin down.

[iCEBREAKER]

You left out the part where the $0.04 USD fee that today guarantees inclusion in the next block is dragging bitcoin down.

4 cents?!  

That's a very high price to pay for simply transferring value to anyone/anywhere, securely and with no permission required.  

We were told Bitcoin is magic internet money.  Since when does magic require outrageous, unaffordable, disproportionate 4 cent fees?

Bitcoin must promise FREE TX 4EVA, or it will be replaced with altcoins.

I thought this was America.  

BlockedSchemeCore is crippling and strangling baby honey badger in his crib.

4 cent transaction fees are Evil BlockedScheme's way to sabotage Bitcoin.

They are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

/incoherent Gavinista buttraging

[AliceGored]

Blocks are full

We've been hearing this since last year.

No, you heard they were going to become full last year. Now they are.

What happened that "blocks are full"?

Satoshi/byte has begun rising. Doubling in the last 3 days actually. Hit over 100 sat/byte [over 10 cents for small 225 byte tx] on a couple blocks today.

Some were making prophecies of doom, destruction, crashes, etc etc, yet nothing happened and price doubled - despite the FUDstorm and fork threats.

Those were warnings about what was coming. The price jumped on pre halving FOMO. ETH went from peanuts to over $1 Billion market cap, now handling 40,000 tx per day that wouldn't fit on the Bitcoin network.

At most a bit of spam was replaced with a few more legit txs and that was the end of the story.

[AlexGR]

No, you heard they were going to become full last year. Now they are.

Oh nooooooo  (<= I bet you can find a colorful pony meme crying )