ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[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?  

BAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!!!

Best this week!

Edit: I can't stop laughing!!

If there is a bounty I can translate in Greek!

[1714050750]

1714050750

[1714050750]

1714050750

[adamstgBit]

7% of the hash rate is hashing with classic

[hv_]

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!!

If there is a bounty I can translate in Greek!

I dont like Bounty, give me a DAO.
 

[adamstgBit]

@gmaxwell

will you comply with Antpool's demands and include the 2MB HF code into the next release?

[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!!

If there is a bounty I can translate in Greek!

stop it... it hurts in my stumach......

BBBBBFFFWWAAAAAAHAAHAAAAA!!!!!!

[illodin]

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? 

ICOs are all such scams. I'd much rather mine it with my fair AMD Radeon Video Card.

How many Segwit's per block btw?

[BitUsher]

@gmaxwell

will you comply with Antpool's demands and include the 2MB HF code into the next release?

The Agreement has nothing to do with Greg , Blockstream , or the rest of core devs that didn't participate. Luke has promised to deliver the code to fulfill the agreement by July, whether the miners and the community decide to use it or not is unknown. The earliest a HF will occur will be in July 2017 if the miners stick to the agreement so don't expect anything soon.

Your question is odd because it assumes that Greg is running the show or even has commit access. He gave that up a long time ago. A question that would make sense in this context is asking each individual core devs their opinion.

[JayJuanGee]

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

Your above post demonstrates that you are in the habit of selectively picking your facts in order to conflate and convolute reality with your continued non-sense in which you are both asserting that blockstream is the same as bitcoin core and your attempt to confuse arguments by finding contradictions where there are none - especially in your confusing approach to creating false altcoin dichotomies... the reality of the matter is that some of you XT/Classic supporters have become desparate in your attempts to keep the blocksize issue alive and come up with all kinds of creative puns that in the end falsely conclude more or less the same thing "there's an emergency in play and bitcoin needs a blocksize increase ASAP" - anyhow a dumb assertion that does not become smarter merely because it is repackaged and comes up with various new ways to distort and conflate facts.

[classicsucks]

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!  

Fred really lets loose with some howlers:

Ethereum has a more robust developer community
Ethereum’s core development team is healthy while Bitcoin’s is dysfunctional
Ethereum has a growth mindset while Bitcoin has a false sense of accomplishment
Ethereum is making faster and more consistent technical progress on the core protocol

Ethereum’s core development team - speaking of "well-meaning dip-sh*ts"... dip-sharts... dip-shards?

ETH's pump might end before their blockchain reaches 500GB... all of that $150 million, vanished into thin air...

[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.

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?

You are getting ahead of yourself, fatty.

We gotta walk before we run, and I believe that the suggestion is that while some systems are still being built and expanded, there are reasonable transitional practices that can be taken if folks are really interested in building upon bitcoin that is already strong, but appearing to become stronger with upcoming implementations of seg wit and whatever other potential scaling solutions that may be needed over the passage of time.

[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?

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.

so now gmaxwell is trying to say i must be lying.. the only way that can be true is if the roadmap doesnt exist..
and that lauda has not been the main glossy leaflet advertiser
hmmmm..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.msg13752212#msg13752212
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1279444.0
(lauda's main technical catchphrase "Have you even looked at the picture shown in the original post?")

as for the drama of the whole roadmap. there were discussions (called round tables) that helped form the roadmap. which included an agreement for the hardfork for 2017
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-miners-agree-hard-fork-code-comes-july-2016-activation-in-2017/

i am going to presume lauda and gmaxwell will pretend that there have been no round tables and that the images lauda was advertising in regards to both segwit in late 2015 and roadmap in early 2016 must have been someone hacking his account by someone at blockstream member who posted those images

maybe instead of calling peple liars. gmaxwell should help out lauda to learn some C++ so that lauda might one day be able to read a line of bitcoin code. and thus not have to blindly advertise something he has no technical knowledge of, simply because someone presented him with basic info

[classicsucks]

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.

Didya ever wonder how businesses succeeded without "Vulture Capital"? How many open source projects can you name that were created by VC investment? Bitcoin is a bunch of code and a community of people that seem to like technology and dislike the global debt-based financial system. Institutional investors only came around late in the game to speculate and profit. This is not real growth, and they create no utility.

You seem to worship the parasitic financial elites, and regard their system as normal and/or effective.

[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?

You are getting ahead of yourself, fatty.

We gotta walk before we run, and I believe that the suggestion is that while some systems are still being built and expanded, there are reasonable transitional practices that can be taken if folks are really interested in building upon bitcoin that is already strong, but appearing to become stronger with upcoming implementations of seg wit and whatever other potential scaling solutions that may be needed over the passage of time.

Look, retard, for now, off-chain txs means something else than the Bitcoin network.

If my telephone company sent me a letter saying I'll have to use carrier pigeons for a while because they're having capacity problems, I wouldn't be much chuffed. And for them to expect potential new customers to adopt their mobile services when they'll have to use carrier pigeons for the first months, maybe up to a year, is stupid to the brink of brain damaged.

Sometimes you have to go ugly early. You, of all people, should know that.

[gmaxwell]

so now gmaxwell is trying to say i must be lying.. the only way that can be true is if the roadmap doesnt exist..
and that lauda has not been the main glossy leaflet advertiser
hmmmm..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.msg13752212#msg13752212
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1279444.0

Thanks for confirming that your lying is intentional and not just a product of ignorance.

That is a Bitcoin Core roadmap, not blockstream, and has nothing about 2017 or "5.7mb potential real data transmission per block".

[franky1]

so now gmaxwell is trying to say i must be lying.. the only way that can be true is if the roadmap doesnt exist..
and that lauda has not been the main glossy leaflet advertiser
hmmmm..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.msg13752212#msg13752212
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1279444.0

Thanks for confirming that your lying is intentional and not just a product of ignorance.

That is a Bitcoin Core roadmap, not blockstream, and has nothing about 2017 or "5.7mb potential real data transmission per block".

come on gmaxwell.. even you know better then that..
i think many have quoted you "Gmaxwell: Segwit is not about saving space for plain full nodes"
so even you know that segwit and other features are going to cause 'big blocks'

come on gmaxwell.. even you know that segwits 1.8x capacity (roadmap guessed 1.5-2x yet further investigation expects 1.8x) means 1.8mb of real fullnode data.
come on gmaxwell.. even you know that things like confidential payment codes turn a 500byte into a over 750byte average size.
turning 1.8mb blocks =2.7mb (without any capacity increase, just bloat instead)
then add on the extra bytes not in the tx but needed to link weakblocks in the block adds more, along with other flags too.
so while staying with the 1mb hard limit there is actually 2.85mb of real data per block once all features are combined from the roadmap

then when the final hard fork happens to turn the 1mb hard limit.. to 2mb.. the butterfly effect is
2mb traditional = 3.6mb segwit
3.6mb segwit = 5.4mb segwit+CPC
5.4mb segwit+CPC = 5.7mb segwit+CPC+all other features and flags

if all you can do is throw an insult and not actually give some maths, code, or statistics .. then you are not doing anything to convince people to your way of thinking.
so how about try to give some actual numbers that can be traced.. that explains the real extra bloat that will occur .. oh and to close a loophole. make sure you numbers are for the actual real FULL data of all the roadmap features used together and transmitted between FULL NODES.. try not to meander the numbers to hide them by talking only about pruned no witness lightclients.. be honest and give numbers for FULL NODES

that is my challenge to you..
no insults. but instead. actual byte for byte maths, stats and details of the bloat of using all of the roadmap features.

[gmaxwell]

what the fuck is a "confidential payment code"? ... in any case, things like any additional commitments come out of the block size limit-- they don't add to it.

There is no math to provide, you're just outright lying-- and trying to obscure it by stringing together your jibberish with addition symbols. The faux-formalism might make it look truthier but it doesn't make it true.

2MB blocks are "Bitcoin Classic"'s roadmap, I suppose that the confusion is justified since that is the subject of this thread.

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, your constant (this is not your job?) selective presentation of the facts has long since gone past the point of nuisance behaviour. Please stop shilling against the Bitcoin team on this site, you have for the second time become so exasperated that you deride the entire forum in frustration, then comically continue to post.

That is to say, you have posted "no-one cares what bitcointalk thinks anyway", then flounced off. Then returned like nothing happened. Twice. Do us all a favour and stay down.

[franky1]

what the fuck is a "confidential payment code"? ... in any case, things like any additional commitments come out of the block size limit-- they don't add to it.

"confidential transactions" is a future feature proposed for bitcoin core.
"confidential payment codes" is the tool (piece of data) that make confidential transactions work

oh by the way..
confidential transaction = https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt (author gmaxwell, yep i laughed.. especially when he admits the ties to blockstream aswell)

and here is gmaxwells example of a laymen's description of a payment code "commitment = SHA256( blinding_factor || data )"
which gmaxwell has voluntarily called the buzzword "Pedersen commitments".. so i apologize that i dont want to use your buzzword, but prefer the more easier term of payment code

think about it.. instead of paying someone 10 sats.. the Pedersen commitments is a SHA hash.. (more data compared to the transparent amount)


as for you saying the "commitments come out of the block size limit-- they don't add to it.".. atleast be honest.
stop talking about the stupid light client no witness mode. and talk about the REAL/FULL data a full node see's and transmits.

with that said its obvious that you knew what i meant by 'payment codes' because you replied directly referencing "commitments" which we both know to be the same thing, even though you prefer your buzzword. (your free to copyright your buzzword, but doesnt mean the common community will be forced to use it)


your mindset is that as of autumn 2017, users will see 2mb of blocks with all the features such as confidential transactions, weakblocks, segwit and the eventual hard fork..(pretending that this 2mb offers 7600tx potential capacity, instead of 1mb 2500 average capacity of traditional blocks)

but that is the lame mindset of only talking about lightclients in no-witness mode.. yet fails to talk about the REAL data of FULL NODES.. please do the maths and statistics for FULL NODES like i asked in previous post

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Didya ever wonder how businesses succeeded without "Vulture Capital"? How many open source projects can you name that were created by VC investment? Bitcoin is a bunch of code and a community of people that seem to like technology and dislike the global debt-based financial system. Institutional investors only came around late in the game to speculate and profit. This is not real growth, and they create no utility.

You seem to worship the parasitic financial elites, and regard their system as normal and/or effective.

Not worshiping anyone.  We were only discussing a situation in which it appears that on an individual level various venture capitalists would have probably made much more money to buy bitcoins directly rather than investing in a bitcoin business.  Yeah, sure I understand the situation is much more complicated in that, so it doesn't really seem necessary to read more into what I was saying and/or to attempt to parse further regarding my fairly superficial comment.

[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.

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?

You are getting ahead of yourself, fatty.

We gotta walk before we run, and I believe that the suggestion is that while some systems are still being built and expanded, there are reasonable transitional practices that can be taken if folks are really interested in building upon bitcoin that is already strong, but appearing to become stronger with upcoming implementations of seg wit and whatever other potential scaling solutions that may be needed over the passage of time.

Look, retard, for now, off-chain txs means something else than the Bitcoin network.

If my telephone company sent me a letter saying I'll have to use carrier pigeons for a while because they're having capacity problems, I wouldn't be much chuffed. And for them to expect potential new customers to adopt their mobile services when they'll have to use carrier pigeons for the first months, maybe up to a year, is stupid to the brink of brain damaged.

Sometimes you have to go ugly early. You, of all people, should know that.

I stand by my earlier comment.  You have not really added anything to this discussion in your latest post.  There are various stages of development and bitcoin is in a great place, even if there happens to be some outside developments, off chain transactions and sometimes even incoherent developments.  Part of the brilliance of decentralization is that people and businesses are free to innovate and experiment in a large number of ways that may directly or indirectly complement or fit into bitcoin.  Nonetheless, within the variety of creativeness and developments around bitcoin, there are some developers who are either completely attempting to ignore bitcoin or to engage in a variety of conduct that attempts to undermine bitcoin - even during times in which there could be bitcoin innovations and investments that they could make into bitcoin that would potentially benefit themselves and their business while making the bitcoin infrastructure stronger.