ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[marcus_of_augustus]

they will code it in, or else.

or else what?

we don't code for terrorists.

[1714754924]

1714754924

[1714754924]

1714754924

[1714754924]

1714754924

[JayJuanGee]

At about this time I gave up on the community and sold my coins.  If the people driving the decision were functional and worked together, or even if they had been discussing the problem in good faith, I would still be a believer even if block size didn't immediately increase.

You are not taking into consideration the idea that there are actors who actually are trying to destroy Bitcoin. Consider that possibility, and then reevaluate everything, is what I would suggest you do.

Well these actors have left the project. (Mike Hearn & Co)

gavin is still around. so is all the whining XT/classic wannabes.

Yep... exactamente... .. there are a lot of those folks participating in these kinds of threads, spinning facts and acting as if their arguments are completely still alive.. kind of a selective memory and stubborn repetition (in spite of evidence to the contrary)

[adamstgBit]

they will code it in, or else.

or else what?

we don't code for terrorists.

mutiny

 

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Your the one who keeps arguing over a point that is largely settled... why can't just focus on positive developments and working within what you got instead of continuing on a theme that should be largely behind us.

Yeah, there will be needs to adapt in the future etc etc.. but you keep harping on some kind of idea about wanting to get larger blocks right away, and no one of importance in the bitcoin community is really persuaded by that argument.. so we do not have it... and it is working fine... we are crashing all the way into the $600s with such a supposed defect (of lacking larger blocksize limits)

[hdbuck]

they will code it in, or else.

or else what?

we don't code for terrorists.

mutiny

 

what ya waiting for captain?

[JayJuanGee]

...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.

Exactly...

Like saying let's fuck up the whole thing of bitcoin just because either a few people are having troubles figuring out fees and receiving confirmation of their transaction as quickly as they had pland and/or other people are making a lot of noise about having such troubles (which stories are likely mostly fabricated or exaggerated, by the way).

[JayJuanGee]

they will code it in, or else.

or else what?

we don't code for terrorists.

Miners will leave antpool, if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation in bitcoin and ill-found destructiveness

[Lauda]

I simply do not care for these excuses, and neither does antpool( and others ). they will code it in, or else.

These are not excuses, these are facts, facts that make you and Jihan look like very intelligent people. There was zero guarantee from Core that this implementation will be merged. This is because the people who were part of that agreement can not do anything on their own. This is not how the project works.

they will code it in, or else.

or else what?
we don't code for terrorists.

They actually think that they can do something about it, what a joke.

Like saying let's fuck up the whole thing of bitcoin just because either a few people are having troubles figuring out fees and receiving confirmation of their transaction as quickly as they had pland and/or other people are making a lot of noise about having such troubles (which stories are likely mostly fabricated or exaggerated, by the way).

I say this every single time that I encounter such posts: You can't blame the network for your own lack of knowledge.

Miners will leave antpool, if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation in bitcoin and ill-found destructiveness

Correct. As it now stands, their position is negative.

[klee]

I was thinking that it would be interesting to see 2 alts in the market (I am dead serious):

SegWit and Classic.

Then see which one gets the biggest hashrate. It would be interesting I think.

Problem is how miners will be motivated to open their old asics for this, I mean probably nobody will be interested to speculate on these alts, I maybe dead wrong though!

Opinions?

[hdbuck]

I was thinking that it would be interesting to see 2 alts in the market (I am dead serious):

SegWit and Classic.

Then see which one gets the biggest hashrate. It would be interesting I think.

Problem is how miners will be motivated to open their old asics for this, I mean probably nobody will be interested to speculate on these alts, I maybe dead wrong though!

Opinions?

That would be the best outcome, make two clean hardforks (leaving untouched the legacy Bitcoin) and let free market choose. Which has been the case for all the shitcoin proposals out there.

But the thing is the belligerents forkers dont have the balls nor the talent to do so as they know they'll eat their shorts because bitcoin's value proposal doesn't thrives from progress nor from mass adoption transactionism but from trustless and apolitical immutability.

if some hardforking change is so valuable, why couldn't an altcoin prove that value and earn its place in the free market and eventually supplant the inferior alternative? Why is that inferior to changing the immutable (within the context of the system) rules when doing so is against the will of any of its users[1]?  Or to use the language of libertarian dogma: Must change only come by force?   Can any blockchain cryptocurrency survive if it becomes a practice and perception that the underlying software contract will be changed?

This shit has been going on for years now, and them block size maniacs keeps on bitching all around like they matter.

But again, Bitcoin no gives fuck. Sorry.

[JayJuanGee]

Miners will leave antpool, if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation in bitcoin and ill-found destructiveness

Correct. As it now stands, their position is negative.

I hope this kind of thing continues when mine poole operators attempt to engage in coercion tactics in what appears as an unwarranted attempt to alter governance, and therefore, lucky enough that miners are sufficiently smart to recognize that they don't want to be part of a mining poole that acts so recklessly and takes stupid and unjustifiable positions.

[gmaxwell]

The promise was made by a couple of devs at the conference. They weren't there with official Core decision making powers. Even if they do code the hard fork 2mb blocksize increase, there's no guarantee it will obtain "consensus" to be included in Core. Unlikely to reach consensus, making it a rather hollow promise.

luke JR did not sign the roundtable as Luke JR - 'eligius inventor and general programmer'.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
Matt Corallo did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
PEter Todd did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.

If they mislead anyone-- though they assure me they didn't-- that's on them, no one else-- doubly so because assurances were made to other contributors that no such thing would be done when concerns were raised in advance about the ethics of trying conspiring to set network rules in closed meetings.  My prior exasperated comments were precisely because I think it's naive to think that whatever understanding there actually was at the time that it wouldn't be spun as something else-- exactly as you're doing.

As far as contributor it's true that they are-- but:  Matt's last merged commit was December 13th (6 months ago), Peter Todd's last merged commit was Jan 31st (5 months ago), Luke's was Feb 27th (4 months ago).  Valued though they are, these are not exactly the most active contributors (and to be complete, they do now all have recent pull requests open).  Their signatures were accurate in any case-- anyone can be a contributor, it doesn't imply any particular authority... but nor did the subject of the agreement require any authority. Considering that the goalposts are shifting, -- now people suggesting that core has to accept whatever they propose (a promise they never could have made), or that this proposal has to come before SW... I don't know why they'd bother with it at all now. It seems clear to me that they're getting played.

I was thinking that it would be interesting to see 2 alts in the market (I am dead serious):

SegWit and Classic.

Then see which one gets the biggest hashrate. It would be interesting I think.

Problem is how miners will be motivated to open their old asics for this, I mean probably nobody will be interested to speculate on these alts, I maybe dead wrong though!

Opinions?

If "Classic" were to hardfork in any case, they could simply make it merged mined.  When I heard the name I initially assume that was precisely what they were going to do-- make it into a spinoff with merge mining, and apply the deceptive "classic" moniker to try to privilege it as the original thing.

[exstasie]

Well i hope antpool stick to its guns and doesn't run segwit code until core makes good on their promise.

Core didn't promise shit. And to be frank, I see a growing contingent of Core supporters that would refuse to support a hard fork even if released by Core. We're fucking tired of this bullshit. As time goes on, I'm leaning towards rejecting any hard fork and retaining immutable consensus.

Those of us who believe in bitcoin because of cypherpunk ethics and its usefulness to evade state actors -- we will never, ever give in to your pathetic pandering to corporations and centralized miners. We will oppose you, always and forever.

At some point, I believe all parties here will simply need to agree to split chains. We will never achieve consensus for a hard fork on an issue like block size, which goes to the core of issues like decentralization and inclusivity, central to the idea of p2p. It's for the best. Please just fork off, and take Coinbase and Antpool with you. It's clear that we will never agree. Just stop trying to make absurd claims that 75% miner agreement means anything whatsoever (it doesn't) and just fork already.

[Fatman3001]

The promise was made by a couple of devs at the conference. They weren't there with official Core decision making powers. Even if they do code the hard fork 2mb blocksize increase, there's no guarantee it will obtain "consensus" to be included in Core. Unlikely to reach consensus, making it a rather hollow promise.

luke JR did not sign the roundtable as Luke JR - 'eligius inventor and general programmer'.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
Matt Corallo did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
PEter Todd did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.

If they mislead anyone-- though they assure me they didn't-- that's on them, no one else-- doubly so because assurances were made to other contributors that no such thing would be done when concerns were raised in advance about the ethics of trying conspiring to set network rules in closed meetings.  My prior exasperated comments were precisely because I think it's naive to think that whatever understanding there actually was at the time that it wouldn't be spun as something else-- exactly as you're doing.

As far as contributor it's true that they are-- but:  Matt's last merged commit was December 13th (6 months ago), Peter Todd's last merged commit was Jan 31st (5 months ago), Luke's was Feb 27th (4 months ago).  Valued though they are, these are not exactly the most active contributors (and to be complete, they do now all have recent pull requests open).  Their signatures were accurate in any case-- anyone can be a contributor, it doesn't imply any particular authority... but nor did the subject of the agreement require any authority. Considering that the goalposts are shifting, -- now people suggesting that core has to accept whatever they propose (a promise they never could have made), or that this proposal has to come before SW... I don't know why they'd bother with it at all now. It seems clear to me that they're getting played.

....

You do understand how an agreement or a contract works, don't you?

Your buddies apparently signed on behalf of Core (it doesn't matter how you feel about it, they did) . The miners signed on behalf of their share of the mining industry.

This agreement has kept the overwhelming majority of hashing power on core and away from classic & co.

What you're suggesting is that the miners should expect nothing in return.

That's a fairly lopsided deal.

In cases of doubt it would be natural interpret it in a direction where this unbalance is evened out.

These people are not some noob programmers you can just smack down with some snarky comments.

If they see the deal broken by your party they will consider it void. Not only that, they will feel mislead and get quite cross about it.

You don't want that to happen. And, frankly, neither do I. And I'm a BIP101 fanboy!

It's a good deal. Try to work with it.

[exstasie]

You do understand how an agreement or a contract works, don't you?

Your buddies apparently signed on behalf of Core (it doesn't matter how you feel about it, they did) . The miners signed on behalf of their share of the mining industry.

You do understand how open source projects work, don't you? WTF gives a few guys the sole authority to dictate what goes into a release? They said they would write the code -- that's all they can do. Feel free to link me to something from the signers that suggests otherwise.

It's a good deal. Try to work with it.

I disagree. Fuck this deal, and fuck Antpool. He can go ahead and block Segwit implementation all he wants -- it's only big blockers that are crying for a capacity increase, anyway. And in that case, no one can blame Core for "stagnating development" given how many doors Segwit opens for scalability, privacy and new features.

[hdbuck]

I agree, fuck the roundtables, fuck the paper agreements, fuck the scaling shenanigans, and fuck all of you (mostly the bitching forkers tho).

Bitcoin's status quo is stronger than ever!

[Carlton Banks]

Kind of amusing how the anti-Bitcoin sentiment has *ahem* developed lol

• Core supporters are now cast as the big blockers
• A small chinese pool is complaining about minutiae in a deal in which they had little bargaining power anyway

And these "developments" are causing the anti-Bitcoin shills to start gloating about some imagined victory? Am I right in thinking that you gentlemen still have almost zero hash rate and almost zero coding talent in your corner? And exactly zero users?

In nearly 18 months, you people have produced a grand sum of nothing. Quit while you're ahead?

[franky1]

Kind of amusing how the anti-Bitcoin sentiment has *ahem* developed lol

• Core supporters are now cast as the big blockers
• A small chinese pool is complaining about minutiae in a deal in which they had little bargaining power anyway

And these "developments" are causing the anti-Bitcoin shills to start gloating about some imagined victory? Am I right in thinking that you gentlemen still have almost zero hash rate and almost zero coding talent in your corner? And exactly zero users?

In nearly 18 months, you people have produced a grand sum of nothing. Quit while you're ahead?

i dont think carlton understands that its him and his blockstream friends that are the anti-bitcoin party..

i really think its time he stops telling bitcoiners to move away, and stop telling people that blockstream altcoins/centralized hubs are the future..
because its becoming very clear he is anti-bitcoin and pro-blockstream

everyone else is pro-bitcoin and anti-blockstream.. and carlton is failing to grasp the difference.. he needs to realise he is on the wrong side of the fense.. but i think it will take him another year to wise up

[marcus_of_augustus]

i'm right here with carlton ... waiting to fire up my blockstream hub you drooling idiot.

[Lauda]

You do understand how an agreement or a contract works, don't you?
Your buddies apparently signed on behalf of Core (it doesn't matter how you feel about it, they did) . The miners signed on behalf of their share of the mining industry.

You do understand how open source projects work, don't you? WTF gives a few guys the sole authority to dictate what goes into a release? They said they would write the code -- that's all they can do. Feel free to link me to something from the signers that suggests otherwise.

Exactly. This assumption that someone else can sign something in my name without my consent is idiotic. The people who were present at that 'argeement' only represented themselves, not other Core contributors, not Core, not my cat, no one else besides themselves.

I disagree. Fuck this deal, and fuck Antpool. He can go ahead and block Segwit implementation all he wants -- it's only big blockers that are crying for a capacity increase, anyway. And in that case, no one can blame Core for "stagnating development" given how many doors Segwit opens for scalability, privacy and new features.

Exactly. Some question how long it would take for Segwit to be adopted and actually bringing the 'capacity' increase. I find it very simple: If you want the capacity increase, you adopt it. Else you don't want the capacity increase. Classic supporters have tried just about any nonsense argument against it.

i'm right here with carlton ... waiting to fire up my blockstream hub you drooling idiot.

Greetings from the PR department (according to Franky).