ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[forevernoob]

... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...

all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit  will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.

on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.

also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy!  

And why do we need micro payments on the blockchain? You can use payment channels for that. There is no need to bloat the blockchain for that.
TX fees are not unpredictable. I have sent hundreds of transactions with a fee of around 0.00001. That's a few cents.

What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.

There is no reason to tell someone who disagrees with you to go use another coin. That is incredibly immature and divisive... I can only conclude that this community is made up of a mixture of zealots who want to prove themselves right at all costs and asinine morons. Or so it seems from the last 20 pages of this thread or so.

The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.

Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.

I don't want to kick anyone out of Bitcoin but I suggest you should start looking into alt coins if you want to make micro transactions on the blockchain.
Why should you use Bitcoin if you don't like it?

[1714757677]

1714757677

[adamstgBit]

... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...

all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit  will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.

on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.

also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy!  

And why do we need micro payments on the blockchain? They can use payment channels for that. There is no need to bloat the blockchain for that.
TX fees are not unpredictable. I have sent hundreds of transactions with only 0.00001 as fee. That's a few cents.

...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one.

[forevernoob]

...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one.

Maybe someone but that doesn't mean we should fork Bitcoin.
That's like a bank CEO saying:
"Since there are a few people that are too stupid to use ATM's we should have assistants next to every ATM"
 
Just use a higher than recommended fee if the transaction is urgent.

[adamstgBit]

...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one.

Maybe someone but that doesn't mean we should fork Bitcoin.
That's like a bank CEO saying:
"Since there are a few people that are too stupid to use ATM's we should have assistants next to every ATM"
 
Just use a higher than recommended fee if the transaction is urgent.

ya sure, increasing capacity isn't a good enough reason to fork bitcoin.
besides we have a simple idea on how to solve this, and it will be ready soon.
so who cares.

[rizzlarolla]

What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.

There is no reason to tell someone who disagrees with you to go use another coin. That is incredibly immature and divisive... I can only conclude that this community is made up of a mixture of zealots who want to prove themselves right at all costs and asinine morons. Or so it seems from the last 20 pages of this thread or so.

The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.

Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.

" ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT"

No constructiveness was ever intended here with such a thread title.
Just gloating.

Anyone thinking of a controlled block size increase is discredited as a "Classic" losers. Case closed.

What a shame Core devs feel the need to repeatedly post here.

[Fatman3001]

" ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT"

No constructiveness was ever intended here with such a thread title.
Just gloating.

Anyone thinking of a controlled block size increase is discredited as a "Classic" losers. Case closed.

What a shame Core devs feel the need to repeatedly post here.

Hear, hear...

[Lauda]

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

For a network, Segwit brings a lot of benefits while a block size increase brings none (if we exclude the TPS increase which is present in both). There isn't much to discuss here.

make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.

Neither one happens if you know how to properly use Bitcoin. Don't blame the network for your lack of knowledge.

and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...

Nonsense. When Core says that the fees are important, 'big blockists' say that it won't be necessary until the year of 20XX (there was a post in /r/btc recently, stating that it won't be important for the next 50 years or so - IIRC). Now you come back with another story?

all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit  will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.

No. There's even a risk at 2 MB, that's why Classic added additional limitations to the system.

on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.

There's also very strong evidence that my cat is a Jedi master.

Anyone thinking of a controlled block size increase is discredited as a "Classic" losers. Case closed.

No.

[jbreher]

The only reason you could possibly think that is that your picture of us bigblockers is formed by mischaracterization of what we actually want. Instead of getting your picture of bigblockers' motivations and desires from your fellow smallblockers, you might want to read what we bigblockers are actually saying.

Well I apologize for assuming that "big blocker" meant that you support bigger blocks?

Just no. The statement you made -- which I was obviously replying to -- was thus:

I thought the majority of "big blockers" now regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment and willing to let go of it and move on to alt coins like Ethereum?

Note your claim that bigblockers "regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment" and "willing to let go of it" and "move on to alt coins like Ethereum". I'm just informing you of the likely reason you believe these falsehoods (if you are not merely dishonestly erecting a straw man argument for rhetorical purposes, that is).

The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.

Well isn't this happening?

But it is. In the last week or so, Bitcoin's share of the crypto space has dwindled from about 84% to about 79%.

Further, blocks are routinely full. Not only that, but the UTXO is larger now than before we consistently hit the maxblocksize. The only rational reason for these being simultaneously true is that transactions are being driven off the main chain.

Your big block pals are now crying that they cannot afford to send transactions.

Some uninformed or unthinking bigblocker minority, yes. But such are not my pals. My bigblocker pals are crying that transaction volume cannot increase further, due to a stupid limitation in the expression of the code.

They are under the impression that everything should be free. Kinda reminds me of the Bernie bots.

Again, it appears to me that you are parroting a mischaracterization. You ought to get out of the echo chamber from time to time.

How is SegWit bloating Bitcoin?

'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction forkbranch of the data, but also the witness forkbranch of the data.

The sum of the transaction forkbranch of the data, plus the witness forkbranch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

Are you saying that SegWit will be a bigger bump than 2MB blocksize increase and therefore bloat the chain?

For the same set of transactions, the Omnibus SegWit Changeset consumes more memory and more bandwidth than without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. 'Cause maths.

So you are basically admitting that bigger blocks will bloat the blockchain?

If your definition of 'bloat' is 'bigger', then ... ummm.... duh. Yes. What is the point of your question?

The point of my reasoning above is to show that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands.

[jbreher]

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

For a network, Segwit brings a lot of benefits while a block size increase brings none (if we exclude the TPS increase which is present in both).

So then you cede the point that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands? Excellent! Who else here agrees with Lauda on this point?

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Thank goodness at least one of these miners has [some semblance of] a spine... Time to start talking about PoW changes again?

[Fatman3001]

^^^ Hey Core! Where's your glass beads now?

Would like to have that account verified though. Someone should poke Jihan on twitter.

[adamstgBit]

Thank goodness at least one of these miners has [some semblance of] a spine... Time to start talking about PoW changes again?

I/we should email antpool thanking them...

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

^^^ Hey Core! Where's your glass beads now?

Would like to have that account verified though. Someone should poke Jihan on twitter.

Maybe Excellion could do it?

Samson must feel somewhat weird having Core crap all over the "HK agreement" he worked so hard on. He even spent the intervening months relentlessly ball cupping them, embarrassing...

[hdbuck]

to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.

[dumbfbrankings]

to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.

Pardon?

[franky1]

to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.

to the blockstream(offchain/altcoin) shills: think about how hypocritical you are

[hv_]

to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.

... And you re still barking for the separation.  What a shame...

[hdbuck]

to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.

... And you re still barking for the separation.  What a shame...

Yeah. STF(ork)U or GT(fork)O.

It's been pretty much the hardforkers' only choices for more than 3 years now.



 

[hv_]

to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.

... And you re still barking for the separation.  What a shame...

Yeah. STF(ork)U or GT(fork)O.

It's been pretty much the hardforkers' only choices for more than 3 years now.



 

Hey, in your deepest core you are a softie!
Get you a saucage
 

[franky1]

blockstreamers problem with HF:
'the decentralized node count will decrease

blockstreamers solution:
create a softwork that makes old nodes no longer full validators.
with those who do upgrade. offer pruned mode to make them no longer fully validate/archive data
with those who do upgrade, but dont prune. offer no witness mode to make them no longer fully validate/archive data
for those who do upgrade but dont prune or remove witness.  offer them sidechains and hubs to no longer care about bitcoins blockchain, and instead be nodes for other network layers.
---hypocrits

blockstreamers problem with HF:
the blocks will be bigger

blockstreamers solution:
create a softwork that pretends its still 1mb hard limit but the actual data increases, then later increase the hard limit at some random date based on the the angle of earth in relation to the sun (summer).
add new features to bloat up each transaction average such as confidential transactions.
pretend that their 5.7mb potential blocks next year are still the 'small blocker plan' (5.7mb good.. 2mb/4mb bad)
---hypocrits

blockstreamers problem with HF:
the code may be wrote by people in the bitcoin space but there is a corporate agenda behind it

blockstreamers solution:
use bitcoin coders but have corporate backing to move people away from bitcoin in a multitude of ways, in preference for their sidechains and hubs
---hypocrits

note:
any blockstreamer that replies with no real statistical data, information about real bloat of their 'small block' false pretense. and simply replies with insults are just angry people that have come to the realization they have been duped by blockstream, but dont want to admit they have walked down the wrong road. and so will double-down on their old beliefs and try to stay strong, and just vent their frustrations out on those that have made them come to that realization.

and those that try to contradict my note to say that they have not come to that realization, and instead they are still strong blockstream believers.. well to them i will just give them time to sit back and think about it. and let them come to the realization at a later date. to atleast make them feel that they will come to the realization in their own time as if its their own idea. then they will be less hostile once it happens