ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[JayJuanGee]

changes should not be made willy nilly to bitcoin's protocol, and merely for the sake of change when $7billion is directly at stake, and there seems to be around $20billion invested around bitcoin (maybe some of that is also shared by alt coin investments).  http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/05/24/cryptocurrency-market-bitcoin-worth-19-48-billion-2016/

If only the VCs would have bought directly into bitcoin instead of cashburning scams middlemen, they'd surely be in a better position to negotiate some protocol changes..

I think that is true on their personal level; however, it certainly is better for us bitcoin holders to have a lot of development around this space (even when a lot of the development turns out to be much less profitable than if the investors had bought the coins themselves).  On the other hand, I believe that there are a certain number of venture capitalists who are doing both... they buy coins and they invest in bitcoin infrastructure.. and some of them may even believe that their investment into BTC's infrastructure preserves the value of their coins (because if they don't do it, then maybe no one else will do it either - tragedy of the commons, no?)

[1714624065]

1714624065

[1714624065]

1714624065

[1714624065]

1714624065

[AlexGR]

So you're okay with losing marketshare to alts while we wait for the fabled segwit/LN or whatever which won't be ready til god knows when?

What are you talking about? The traffic on chains like LTC, DOGE, DASH, XMR etc, is too small to even register. And ETH is speculative bs "smart contracts".

[2c0de]

Ironic: That this is happening after months of "Bitcoin Classic" advocates howling incorrectly about soft-forks silently downgrading the level of validation their nodes do... Doubly ironic: If changes like this were hardforks users of under-maintained projects like "Bitcoin Classic" and Bitcoin XT would be forced by the change to use Bitcoin Core instead of their preferred software.

Well the whole point of Classic is to create a program that "looks like Bitcoin but isn't Bitcoin", but shows something scary and blows up spectaculary at a pre-arranged date, so that wall street can release their media articles and dump their hoard to crash the price.

We copy Bitcoin and crash the copy, nobody will notice a difference. LOL fake news are so 17th century. It's already priced in, move on nothing to see here.

[marcus_of_augustus]

changes should not be made willy nilly to bitcoin's protocol, and merely for the sake of change when $7billion is directly at stake, and there seems to be around $20billion invested around bitcoin (maybe some of that is also shared by alt coin investments).  http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/05/24/cryptocurrency-market-bitcoin-worth-19-48-billion-2016/

If only the VCs would have bought directly into bitcoin instead of cashburning scams middlemen, they'd surely be in a better position to negotiate some protocol changes..

i wonder how much of that VC money ended up in coders' hands who turned around and bought bitcoin with it ??   

[gmaxwell]

Beyond a leadership vacuum, Bitcoin’s “leadership” is less clear and toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of core developers, recently referred to other core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well meaning dips***s.”

 

What? you don't read this thread? (the comment he was referring to was a few pages back)-- I guess it's interesting to know that Coinbase's executives are reading this thread.

More deceptive garbage-- in particular, it makes it sound like I wasn't referring to my own freeking employees there, or that my flip comment had something to do with working with miners on compromise when instead I explicitly pointed out it was because they went off to hold a secret meeting and let themselves get coerced (literally locked in a room until 3-4am) into an agreement which-- in the sense it was understood-- was physically impossible for them to comply with (because none of them have the authority to control what core releases or what the network runs)... and they did so after explicitly promising other people-- concerned about the ethics of meeting in secret to collude with miners-- that they go only to learn and share information and not make agreements. I don't feel any hesitation in calling that a foolish move. (and not just in hindsight, I warned about this kind of outcome in advance)

But while we're on the subject of foolish moves, whats the deal with coinbase continually insulting bitcoin technology and antagonizing the people whom are actually working on it?  They contribute _NOTHING_ to the technology, they don't even contribute to maintaining their beloved "classic".  I guess they might be happier with Ethereum, since it's a far more centralized system they'll know exactly who to lobby to get whatever they want without putting in any effort themselves...  But, considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.

[leemar]

considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.

So now your accusing the guy who released the first Alt to get any traction, that went to work for a bitcoin startup, of pumping Ether?  

[franky1]

seems like gmaxwell hates mining pools and exchanges.. yet gets a nice payday from blockstream..(come on everyone can see clear as day that the $55million is not just being used by Mr. Back alone)

is it due to the fact that blockstream loves their fiat handouts and partnerships with fiat based institutions instead of businesses that are predominantly in the crypto-spere.?

or is it that those crypto-based businesses didnt offer him a job so he had to sell out to the fiat lovers, and is now fearing the prospect of 'doing a hearne' when the blockstream(bank backed) business pushes him away.

i presume another word twisting game play by blockstreamers, saying they are not bank backed will be a possible reply.. yet everyone can transparently see who the main investors of blockstream are. and the partnerships via PwC are.. which cant be denied

i also presume another word twisting gamee play from blockstreamers will eventually be that their blockstream payouts are for their 9-5 private employment, and that their evenings are free and unpaid to volunteer' on bitcoin projects.

but lets see how many people defend blockstreamers.. with the same reasons to protect blockstream that they used to attack anything not blockstream. and then just laugh at the hypocrisy of that act

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Beyond a leadership vacuum, Bitcoin’s “leadership” is less clear and toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of core developers, recently referred to other core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well meaning dips***s.”

 

What? you don't read this thread? (the comment he was referring to was a few pages back)-- I guess it's interesting to know that Coinbase's executives are reading this thread.

More deceptive garbage-- in particular, it makes it sound like I wasn't referring to my own freeking employees there, or that my flip comment had something to do with working with miners on compromise when instead I explicitly pointed out it was because they went off to hold a secret meeting and let themselves get coerced (literally locked in a room until 3-4am) into an agreement which-- in the sense it was understood-- was physically impossible for them to comply with (because none of them have the authority to control what core releases or what the network runs)... and they did so after explicitly promising other people-- concerned about the ethics of meeting in secret to collude with miners-- that they go only to learn and share information and not make agreements. I don't feel any hesitation in calling that a foolish move. (and not just in hindsight, I warned about this kind of outcome in advance)

But while we're on the subject of foolish moves, whats the deal with coinbase continually insulting bitcoin technology and antagonizing the people whom are actually working on it?  They contribute _NOTHING_ to the technology, they don't even contribute to maintaining their beloved "classic".  I guess they might be happier with Ethereum, since it's a far more centralized system they'll know exactly who to lobby to get whatever they want without putting in any effort themselves...  But, considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.

You must have some thick skin to weather this kind of negative media attention. I've met Vitalik. If/when this kind of shit hits his fan, I'm afraid he'll cry for days. Did you hear about the Wiki editor who had a nervous breakdown? Ya, don't do that.

[chopstick]

So you're okay with losing marketshare to alts while we wait for the fabled segwit/LN or whatever which won't be ready til god knows when?

What are you talking about? The traffic on chains like LTC, DOGE, DASH, XMR etc, is too small to even register. And ETH is speculative bs "smart contracts".

And yet ETH has become the first alt to surpass a $1billion market cap. BTC is sitting at around 80% market share. Do you really think it will not decline even lower if we still don't have scaling implemented two fucking years from now?

[iCEBREAKER]

Beyond a leadership vacuum, Bitcoin’s “leadership” is less clear and toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of core developers, recently referred to other core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well meaning dips***s.”

 

What you don't read this thread?

More deceptive garbage-- in particular, it makes it sound like I wasn't referring to my own freeking employees there, or that my flip comment had something to do with working with miners on compromise when instead I explicitly pointed out it was because they went off to hold a secret meeting and let themselves get coerced (literally locked in a room until 3-4am) into an agreement which-- in the sense it was understood-- was physically impossible to comply with (because none of them have the authority to control what core releases or what the network runs)... and they did so after explicitly promising other people that they go to learn and share information and not make agreements. I don't feel any hesitation in calling that a foolish move.

But while we're on the subject of foolish moves, whats the deal with coinbase continually insulting bitcoin technology and antagonizing the people whom are actually working on it?  They contribute _NOTHING_ to the technology, they don't even contribute to maintaining classic.  I guess they might be happier with Ethereum, since it's a far more centralized system they'll know exactly who to lobby to get whatever they want without putting in any effort themselves...  But, considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.

Gotta love how pearl-clutching Precious Fred subtly emphasizes the magnitude of your supposed Great Offense by delicately replacing with asterisks a few key letters of your Unspeakably Transgressive & Vulgar term.  

Rule #13 - you're soaking in it....  

Isolating, freezing, fixating, polarizing, and escalating based upon the term "dipshits" is textbook Alinsky agitprop.

So is reducing the blocksize/governance debates to a referendum on a (your) particular personality.

Armstrong's otherwise baffling and bizarre actions are consistent with this ("Blockchain Alliance = the ACORN of Bitcoin") hypothesis.  IE,

Alinsky's tactics were often unorthodox. In Rules for Radicals he wrote,

   [t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a 'dangerous enemy.' [According to Alinsky], the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer's] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.

The best things about being targeted by the Hivemind are the options which become available when you are in their crosshairs...  

[franky1]

^ doesnt icebreaker see the words he says about others are infact his own actions against anyone not blockstream.

pot, kettle, black

as for his crosshairs.. he is just shooting himself in the foot

[AliceGored]

Don’t listen to the bankster troll sock puppet campaign. Status Quo Segwit in April. ETH is a centralized scam coin for Coinbase employees to pump.

The sand’s nice n warm. Join us, will you?

[JayJuanGee]

changes should not be made willy nilly to bitcoin's protocol, and merely for the sake of change when $7billion is directly at stake, and there seems to be around $20billion invested around bitcoin (maybe some of that is also shared by alt coin investments).  http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/05/24/cryptocurrency-market-bitcoin-worth-19-48-billion-2016/

If only the VCs would have bought directly into bitcoin instead of cashburning scams middlemen, they'd surely be in a better position to negotiate some protocol changes..

i wonder how much of that VC money ended up in coders' hands who turned around and bought bitcoin with it ??   

Yep.. agreed. 

There is some rippling effect from investments, and I am glad that some of the early investors in bitcoin saw fit to invest in bitcoin and to develop the space.. In the end, we need the VCs and the VCs need the speculators, and possibly somewhere down the line some of the VCs are going to make some decent profits from their BTC venture investments even though measuring each investment individually, it may not seem to be a very good investment... also, successful business will also tend to learn from some of the failed businesses to take some of their successful components and maybe to avoid some of the unsuccessful components to the extent that they can identify those aspects.

[JayJuanGee]

More deceptive garbage-- in particular, it makes it sound like I wasn't referring to my own freeking employees there, or that my flip comment had something to do with working with miners on compromise when instead I explicitly pointed out it was because they went off to hold a secret meeting and let themselves get coerced (literally locked in a room until 3-4am) into an agreement which-- in the sense it was understood-- was physically impossible for them to comply with (because none of them have the authority to control what core releases or what the network runs)... and they did so after explicitly promising other people-- concerned about the ethics of meeting in secret to collude with miners-- that they go only to learn and share information and not make agreements. I don't feel any hesitation in calling that a foolish move. (and not just in hindsight, I warned about this kind of outcome in advance)

Well, obviously you know the relationships of these various participants a lot better than me, and therefore, you are likely a lot more aware of various underlying dynamics, including whether folks may have been either coerced or going overboard in their attempts to represent their authority. 

I consider one great thing about bitcoin is the decentralized fundamentals, but then again if there are some folks who are in employer / employee relationships, then their free acting can be jeopardized or biased.

In the end, when I read the hong kong agreement, it seemed fairly reasonable and sufficiently amorphous in order to leave plenty of room for loopholes.. it seems a bit disingenuous to assert that people were coerced or to rely too much on those kinds of claims... .. but anyway, the agreement may show a kind of sentiment that is not binding but advisory even though some of the players may have been considered to have lower level positions than others.. but it can also be a continued dialogue and also it can cause some progress in the space, which  I think that it did.. even if the thing was not exactly binding.

But while we're on the subject of foolish moves, whats the deal with coinbase continually insulting bitcoin technology and antagonizing the people whom are actually working on it?  They contribute _NOTHING_ to the technology, they don't even contribute to maintaining their beloved "classic".  I guess they might be happier with Ethereum, since it's a far more centralized system they'll know exactly who to lobby to get whatever they want without putting in any effort themselves...  But, considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.

Well, yeah, some of the "insider trading" may be illegal in other contexts, and who knows the extent to which some of the Coinbase insiders were likely trading on such knowledge and may even continue to be aware of additional ETH pump efforts that may or may not succeed (once the tide begins to change)..  and those who don't get out early enough may get a bit screwed

[Mrmadden]

I have to say, I'm much happier now that I've stopped paying close attention to this debate. Demand will happen when it's ready, and if bitcoin is there to support that demand, great. If not, another cryptocurrency will fill the void. The good news is, cryptocurrencies combined market cap keeps growing and growing. More infrastructure is built on top of it every year. Even if bitcoin is mismanaged and becomes myspace, cryptocurrency is here to stay.

[JayJuanGee]

So you're okay with losing marketshare to alts while we wait for the fabled segwit/LN or whatever which won't be ready til god knows when?

What are you talking about? The traffic on chains like LTC, DOGE, DASH, XMR etc, is too small to even register. And ETH is speculative bs "smart contracts".

And yet ETH has become the first alt to surpass a $1billion market cap. BTC is sitting at around 80% market share. Do you really think it will not decline even lower if we still don't have scaling implemented two fucking years from now?

I recall several posts back, maybe two weeks ago, you brought up this topic, and said it's no big deal but you sure would like to see some voluntary bitcoin scaling, and now you seem to be getting all worked up over this topic and attempting to insist that scaling needs to be done and that bitcoin is going to die if scaling does not occur.

Furthermore, you are overhyping the importance of the recent ETH pump.. yeah, you have created some kind of selective presentation when you say ETH has been the only one to surpass $1billion.. and yeah, technically, that is correct, but so far, at best ETH has only risen to 17% of bitcoin's market cap.. yes, that is so far...

Remember Ripple?  In December 2015, Ripple was nearly 20% of Bitcoin's market cap.... yes, Ripple was pumped and pumped and pumped..   Currently, Ripple is about 3% of bitcoin's market cap.

Yeah, maybe ETH is going to make some better headways and get more of bitcoin's market cap, but so fucking what?  Even though ETH is supposedly innovative in so many ways, it has way too many issues to properly surplant BTC, and in fact, ETH likely continues to need BTC in order to continue with its various pumping scams.

I have no problem going over to ETH if it were to surplant BTC, but anyone who is in anyway knowledgeable about the differences between ETH and BTC should recognize that ETH is no kind of threat to BTC because it is offering a different thing.. and bitcoin is not broken for its intended purpose (securing value immutably and permissionlessly)

[Luke-Jr]

"Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." -Roger Ver

The real question you should be asking, is who lied to these companies that Bitcoin can't handle their users?

[iCEBREAKER]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4fdaqe/supporters_of_2_mb_bitcoin_blocks_unable_to/

Stick a fork in it it's done 

Hilarious.  I bet Andresen, Smith and Armstrong are furiously writing Medium posts as we speak.

Calling Dr. Flame to the burn ward!   

Hilarious+Furious Medium post writing confirmed:

https://medium.com/the-coinbase-blog/ethereum-is-the-forefront-of-digital-currency-5300298f6c75

Shots fired.  Here we go again!   

[chopstick]

"Unfortunately, I know of multiple companies with more than 100,000,000 users that have put their bitcoin integration on hold because there isn't enough current capacity in the Bitcoin network for their users to start using Bitcoin. Instead they are looking at options other than Bitcoin." -Roger Ver

The real question you should be asking, is who lied to these companies that Bitcoin can't handle their users?

How exactly would it be lying? BTC couldn't handle the tx capacity added from these users right now. Forcing them to engage in a bidding war with eachother for blockspace is not good business sense. It might be able to handle them in the future, but not right now, and the now is all that matters for these companies.

[franky1]

The real question you should be asking, is who lied to these companies that Bitcoin can't handle their users?

the real question is once all of the smoke and mirrors are removed, idea's like LN is nothing more then the same scenario of 2012.
depositing funds into a locked third party address (hub) and then trading funds on a different platform.
sounds the exact same as trading btc-e/mtgox keys via bitinstant, just without registering the business....

so sticking with ONCHAIN BITCOIN
who lied to blockstreamers that 2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)
who lied to blockstreamers that segwit was the scaling solution because other solutions should be ignored due to data issues
who lied to blockstreamers that segwit is perfect. (yet not even released publicly)
who lied to blockstreamers that 2mb in 2015 was bad but over 5mb in 2017 is good yet that 5.7mb does not offer 5.7x the capacity of current 1mb blocks(estimate of only 3x)

2017 roadmap
segwit offering 1.8x capacity along with the eventual 2mb hard fork = 3.6mb + average transaction goes from 500byte to 750+bytes due to CPC = 5.4mb. plus a few extra bytes of data per transaction for different flags and features=5.7mb potential bloat per block.
good old blockstreamers.. pretending to be smallblockers hating the idea of big blockers.. yet they themselves are the big blockers..