ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[marcus_of_augustus]

"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?

or a better question is who are these companies exactly?

... and then if they are real and do have 100 million users why isn't it they cannot afford to build their own layers, Lightning, Thunder, Sidechain, etc to scale bitcoin to their needs? The technology exists someone just needs to stump up to build it ... at present Blockstream is one of the few actually building shit and not clipping the ticket.

[1714860258]

1714860258

[1714860258]

1714860258

[1714860258]

1714860258

[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?

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.

There's no reason they couldn't use off-chain transactions until Lightning is ready, as daytraders have been doing since 2011.
If the companies are really concerned about it, they could also fund development of Lightning to get it done even faster.

The limitation isn't Bitcoin - it's what the companies are willing to do the work for.
Blaming Bitcoin is just propaganda to enable laziness for greedy companies that want to reap the benefits without doing any of the work.

[gmaxwell]

2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)

What the @#$@ are you talking about?  "blockstreams 2017 roadmap"?!?!?! Where can I get a copy of this?

And "potential"? The fact that a miner could create contrived high cost blocks is nothing new, right now miners can create blocks that take something like 20 minutes of cpu time to validate. But this sort of intentional bloat-block is almost equivalent to just delaying publication of the block.  What matters for the long term system cost is the average size of blocks, not the potential for a single unusually costly one. Without segwit the unusually costly risks are just different (instead, they take the form of utxo bloat blocks or signature hashing bloatblocks). If your metric of risk is the worst case time it can take to transfer and process a block, segwit does not increase this over the current state: It does allow more data to be sent in the worst case, but segwit transactions have massively faster worst case validation. The end result is that the worst case block with segwit is exactly the same as the worst case block without, you can't use segwit transactions if you want to make a block that propagates very slowly.

segwit is perfect. (yet not even released publicly)

Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Where is Bitcoin Classic's segwit implementation? Hell, where is their mediantimepast and CSV implementations?  Even when they can just copy code from core they can't seem to keep up. If you're going to complaint about something not moving fast enough, it's not core you need to look at...

[JayJuanGee]

"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.

You are just guessing, Chopstick.

There is no real evidence that various companies could not figure out ways to develop on BTC if they wanted to... They do not want to incorporate bitcoin into their business because they want to create confusion and attempt to find their own way with their own private blockchains and other centralized systems.. any kind of discussion that bitcoin is crippled or debilitated is a distraction and not supported by any actual evidence (besides some people who know how to scream loudly about shit that they make up non-evidentiary matters).

[JayJuanGee]

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..

You sure make a lot of assertions about "blockstreamers" x, y, z - but bitcoin is not blockstreamers.. so you are making little to no sense.  My understanding is that there are various bitcoiners who are involve in blockstream, but blockstream is looking into ways to build on bitcoin.. and it is not bitcoin in itself.  

Anyhow, your post seems to attribute a variety of matters to blockstreamers makes little sense, and seems to be an attempt to convolute matters and to claim something is other than it is in order to spread FUCD.

[jbreher]

right now miners can create blocks that take something like 20 minutes of cpu time to validate.

The obvious game-theoretically consistent solution to this is for some miners to stop trying to validate aberrant blocks, and get back to the business of hashing. For such would be a market advantage. Assuming such aberrant blocks are ever created in any volume.

Where is Bitcoin Classic's segwit implementation? Hell, where is their mediantimepast and CSV implementations?  

I wasn't aware Classic was beholden to Core's cadence. 'Twould kind of defeat the purpose, no? For that matter, where is Core's Xthin implementation? Where is Core's per-node variable limits? Where's Core's big block support?

Right - they're not seen as desirable by Core. Well, there's your answer.

But it seems you'd rather attack a straw horse than discuss a real issue.

[franky1]

2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)

What the @#$@ are you talking about?  "blockstreams 2017 roadmap"?!?!?! Where can I get a copy of this?

for a blockstream lover you seem to have never seen blockstreams roadmap that said they would finally agree to a hardfork in 2017 once they have things like confidential payment codes and other features sussed first..

i find that a real shock that your pleading ignorance to the blockstream roadmap... shame on you

And "potential"? The fact that a miner could create contrived high cost blocks is nothing new, right now miners can create blocks that take something like 20 minutes of cpu time to validate. But this sort of intentional bloat-block is almost equivalent to just delaying publication of the block.  What matters for the long term system cost is the average size of blocks, not the potential for a single unusually costly one. Without segwit the unusually costly risks are just different (instead, they take the form of utxo bloat blocks or signature hashing bloatblocks). If your metric of risk is the worst case time it can take to transfer and process a block, segwit does not increase this over the current state: It does allow more data to be sent in the worst case, but segwit transactions have massively faster worst case validation. The end result is that the worst case block with segwit is exactly the same as the worst case block without, you can't use segwit transactions if you want to make a block that propagates very slowly.

segwit is perfect. (yet not even released publicly)

Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Where is Bitcoin Classic's segwit implementation? Hell, where is their mediantimepast and CSV implementations?  Even when they can just copy code from core they can't seem to keep up. If you're going to complaint about something not moving fast enough, it's not core you need to look at...

lol lol
noooo.. segwit is still in testing stage on a different network, its not part of the bitcoin main net.. so to all intense and purposes its not released publicly..

show me one person that can use REAL bitcoins on bitcoins PUBLIC LEDGER that can perform segwit..

segnet is an altcoin right now. with its own genesis block and its own chain.(dont deny it, as even you yourself said its genesis began in january)
if your going to presume that non-blockstream implementations are some kind of altcoin (usual mantra blockstreamers chant)... how about try not to pretend segnet is not an altcoin or a sandbox while trying to convince people that its a working solution that is live for bitcoiners..

[franky1]

You sure make a lot of assertions about "blockstreamers" x, y, z - but bitcoin is not blockstreamers.. so you are making little to no sense.  My understanding is that there are various bitcoiners who are involve in blockstream, but blockstream is looking into ways to build on bitcoin.. and it is not bitcoin in itself.  

Anyhow, your post seems to attribute a variety of matters to blockstreamers makes little sense, and seems to be an attempt to convolute matters and to claim something is other than it is in order to spread FUCD.

the reason being is because if you read all of this 99 page topic.. the blockstreamers themselves are presuming that blockstream is bitcoin.. and anything else involving people NOT on blockstream salary or not a blockstream religious sect must be an altcoin.. yet the hypocrisy and truth of it, is that blockstream itself are the altcoin developers..

even my last post pointed out the failings of a blockstreamer who is blindly presuming that segnet is bitcoin.. even when his own words are telling him that segnet is its own altcoin with its own genesis block. he still feels that segwit is a piece of perfection that is handling bitcoin transactions right this second perfectly....

the comedy moments about the blockstream hypocrisy is truly rib tickling hilarity.
if only blockstreamers opened their minds and stopped defending their altcoins and instead invested their passion and brains into the possibility that people who are NOT paid by blockstream may actually want bitcoin to grow ONCHAIN for the benefit of the community, then they would not be trying to suggest non-blockstream is an altcoiner.. and instead realise blockstream is the altcoiner.. as even you have realised this.

putting it to the bottom line
blockstreams idea is 5.7mb of data for approximately 7600tx capacity.
yet when anyone else said 4mb of data for 10,000 average capacity. blockstreamers threw a dummy out the pram
yet when anyone else said 2mb of data for 5,000 average capacity. blockstreamers threw another dummy out the pram

[Lauda]

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!  

What a joke. ETH is based on the speculative premise that smart contracts are important and will have value. Surely once disaster strikes, everyone will ignore the save-heaven and rush into ETH because of these contracts. At least we know who is behind the ETH pump ("coinbase blog").

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4fdaqe/supporters_of_2_mb_bitcoin_blocks_unable_to/
Stick a fork in it it's done  

I've completely missed out on this. How come that there were no Classic supporters talking about it?

2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)

What the @#$@ are you talking about?  "blockstreams 2017 roadmap"?!?!?! Where can I get a copy of this?

You're wasting your time with that guy. According to him, I'm in Blockstream's PR department.  

[forevernoob]

I find it hilarious that big blockers are jumping on the ETH hype train.
Everyone knows that the Ethereum blockchain is bloated and already ginormous which doesn't bode well for a coin so young.

Soon they are gonna find out why it's a good idea to keep blocks as small as possible.

[hdbuck]

the bad faith and despair from classic statist turds is palpable, move on to eth ffs!


luke, I mean no offense but stfu and write the dipshit HF! faster! got a roundtable deadline here!

[johnyj]

Any change is OK with a formalized change management process, e.g. first collecting feed back from all stakeholders, then implementation based on consensus. Without this process, it will definitely create disruption in the community and many wasted efforts in coding since the code will never be used. The order is wrong by first coding then pushing it out

Of course by this approach you will never be able to make large and complex changes, but that is good to make sure the system works at its maximum stability, especially important for financial systems. Some banks are still using protocol from 1960s, why bother change bitcoin protocol every a few months

[hdbuck]

You dont bother change bitcoin protocol because its impossible, especially for marketing or political reasons.

[gmaxwell]

2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)

What the @#$@ are you talking about?  "blockstreams 2017 roadmap"?!?!?! Where can I get a copy of this?

You're wasting your time with that guy. According to him, I'm in Blockstream's PR department.  

No kidding-- the only value in replying is that most people don't expect such audacious lies, and if there is no correction at all these jerks will keep doubling down on their dishonesty until joe-bystander, who can tell that it's at least 99% rubbish, thinks that at least 1% of it must be true.

[hv_]

You dont bother change bitcoin protocol because its impossible, especially for marketing or political reasons.

What is the protocol?

21 Mio. fix,   Good, volatility = 0.   

Blocksize fix ? not good, we need some volatiliy.

User adoption rate & market price ? volatility wellcome!

But the fee volatility thats coming up now is big big bs ...  Who should adope that?

[Fatman3001]

"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.

There's no reason they couldn't use off-chain transactions until Lightning is ready, as daytraders have been doing since 2011.
If the companies are really concerned about it, they could also fund development of Lightning to get it done even faster.

Such decentralization. Where does Bitcoin fit in all of this?

The limitation isn't Bitcoin - it's what the companies are willing to do the work for.
Blaming Bitcoin is just propaganda to enable laziness for greedy companies that want to reap the benefits without doing any of the work.

No, it's Bitcoin. Those greedy companies are supposed to be greedy. What part of trustless is it you don't understand?

[iCEBREAKER]

Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Where is Bitcoin Classic's segwit implementation? Hell, where is their mediantimepast and CSV implementations?  Even when they can just copy code from core they can't seem to keep up. If you're going to complaint about something not moving fast enough, it's not core you need to look at...

The latest lame, sour grapes spin from Camp Gavin is Klassic wins and fulfills its purpose simply by existing.   

That's why we see this nonsense about Klassik not needing to follow Core's "cadence."

[klee]

http://gavinandresen.ninja/bitcoin-protocol-role-models

[klee]

Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Will there be an ICO? 

[Fatman3001]

Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Will there be an ICO?  

BAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!!!

Best this week!

Edit: I can't stop laughing!!