ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[franky1]

its hopeless, you will forever believe 8MB blocks would break bitcoin.

They would. Even a 2 MB block size limit could, but that's what the 'hacky workaround' with those limitations is all about. It is you who does not know things, and it is you who is being fed lies. Do you even know what the difference between linear and quadratic scaling means? Have you even heard of the big O?  

bitcoin runs on a raspberry pi.. with the new libsecp256k1 it makes validating alot faster, so that means 2mb is no problem. especially on standard computers that are less then 10 years old (basic majority) and still ok for older computers and the said raspberry Pi.. but hey, Lauda thinks everyone should stick to Pi or jump to massive servers.. he cannot see the normal home computer category in the middle

the only time that linear vs quadratic becomes a noticeable problem is not really today.. but when LN becomes a thing. when they will be throwing out LARGE settlement transactions.

the linear vs quadratic debate is not about normal user transactions.. but about preventing a bottleneck to allow LN to happen smoothly. in the future.
i feel sorry when people think its their right to try dissing bitcoin to try to sway people to think all these new features are needed to move people onto sidechains and second layer solutions which wont be as secure or distributed.

[exstasie]

Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.

A non-Segwit node can always validate transactions that are relevant to them. They do not validate the witness portion of Segwit transactions. They also do not generate Segwit addresses, nor do they participate in Segwit transactions. What you're talking about is moot.

The only real issue there is partitioning risk in the bootstrapping phase -- since Segwit nodes can't bootstrap from non-Segwit nodes. The solution for this (dropping non Segwit peers for Segwit peers in outgoing connections) has already been coded and merged.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.

A non-Segwit node can always validate transactions that are relevant to them. They do not validate the witness portion of Segwit transactions. They also do not generate Segwit addresses, nor do they participate in Segwit transactions. What you're talking about is moot.

The only real issue there is partitioning risk in the bootstrapping phase -- since Segwit nodes can't bootstrap from non-Segwit nodes. The solution for this (dropping non Segwit peers for Segwit peers in outgoing connections) has already been coded and merged.

Soft-fork segwit is (unless you were closely watching Dr. Backamoto's extension block proposal) such an unexpected and refreshingly elegant optimal solution (IE pleasing to both 'sides') it doubtless grinds Gavinistas' gears that Evil BlockSchemeNorthCorea agent provocateur Lukejr was the primary author.

I predict the Gavinista Jihad against segwit will be just as successful as the one against OP_CLTV.  That is, not at all.

[jbreher]

Segwit transactions are not "the same set of transactions" as non-Segwit transactions.

Let's back up the bus a sec. Seems we have a terminology overload. When I said "the same set of transactions", I'm speaking of economic transactions, not their encoding upon the wire.

If, in regards to Segwit's [flex] block size increase, you're asking whether more data = more data, then yes. More data = more data. To which I would ask, what point are you trying to make?

For the same set of _user_transactions_ -- as in user X transfers value Q to address Z' -- more data must must be stored by a fully validating node using SegWit than without. It ain't a matter of the centrally-planned block size increase, its a matter of adding the ability to correlate the correct data in the 'main' block chain with the correct data in the 'witness' block chain. This is not free - there is overhead added.

in standard transactions, due to the size of signatures vs. preimages, Txouts are about 25% of the size of TxIns (hence the 75% discount for Segwit transactions).

'About', yes. Today. On average. Kind of. Tomorrow? Who knows the ratio? Nobody - that's who. The direction BU seems to be headed to deal with this is via emergent consensus - let the free market decide, rather than being centrally planned 75%, which will be simply wrong for certain transaction mixes. Which, incidentally, is what BU does today for the maxblocksize -- let the market decide.

Rather than rely on the centralization of the ever-so-well-meaning dev oracles (who are bright guys, but I think are headed down a blind path on economic matters), I would rather put my trust in the decentralized market.

Um, what did you think "Peer-to-Peer" referred to in "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System?" Feel free to google "peer-to-peer":

https://www.google.com/search?q=Peer-to-Peer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

denoting or relating to computer networks in which each computer can act as a server for the others, allowing shared access to files and peripherals without the need for a central server_.

[emphasis added] I note your quoted definition has exactly no correlation to the type of 'centralization' we are discussing. Note that 'a'? Note 'server' in the singular?

It looks foolish on you to argue that decentralization doesn't matter in regards to bitcoin

It looks foolish on you to attribute an argument that I do not make. There are many ways that a complex system can be decentralized. True, one is in the number of non-mining fully-validating nodes. I would argue that we could lose at least an order of magnitude here, and it would affect the security of bitcoin not one whit. After all, other than the fact that non-mining, fully-validating nodes tend to be run by bitcoin owners, such nodes are essentially powerless. The node's only option is whether or not to forward a particular transaction. Sure, the user operating the node can abandon the chain created by the mining majority. But that is not the node acting, it is the holder of the coins.

But again, for the same number of economic transactions, The Omnibus SegWit Changeset actually increases the bandwidth and storage burden upon fully-validating nodes.

Another dimension the system might be centralized across is in mining power. Or implementations. Or decision making. Or even total number of users of the monetary unit. But we don't care about these, do we? (Well, I do, but it seems you may not).

Cheese? Who's in the Free Shit Army^TM now?

What are you babbling about? I'm contributing all the bandwidth I can

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

If you're contributing all the bandwidth you can, you're gonna be kicked out of the club of contributing nodes as soon as SegWit activates. Gee, thanks Core!

Incidentally, I operate a fully-validating node as well. Several, in fact. So sorry you live in a backwater. Must be analogous to trying to mine in Sweden, rather than China.

Big blockers suggest that we increase capacity simply to keep transactions cheap or free for users.

Perhaps some. Not the ones I speak with. We suggest we increase capacity in order to increase capacity. Making room for more transactions. Which would make room for (all else equal) more bitcoin users. More users, more momentum, more value, more hashpower, more security, more headstart before the vampire squid awakens to the significance of this radical new money.

We trust that the miners are capable, as a group, to provide the proper value for maxblocksize. As an emergent property of the market. Your solution is a centrally-planned fixed unit of size for this crucial economic variable. Yet you claim to desire decentralization? *psh!*

transaction relaying and validation is not free

Yet nodes do not get paid for this service - only miners do. Ergo, miners are the ones with the incentive to arrive at the proper value for this crucial economic variable.

You seem to think I should pay for users to transact for free or extremely cheap, forever, with no regard for the actual cost of validating/relaying transactions

You make no sense. You are already working for free.

Bitcoin isn't a public service for users to transact for free -- it is an incentive-based economy.

The only possible incentives for operating a non-mining, fully-validating node are the ones you mentioned earlier - security and altruism. Well, maybe the ability to handle your transactions without needing to rely on others. Nevertheless, you don't get a share of the monetary incentives under any scenario. (kinda sad nodes are not renumerated, maybe someday the next satoshi will figure that problem out).

[jbreher]

Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.

A non-Segwit node can always validate transactions that are relevant to them. They do not validate the witness portion of Segwit transactions. They also do not generate Segwit addresses, nor do they participate in Segwit transactions. What you're talking about is moot.

What part of 'fully-validating node' do you not understand?

[franky1]

Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.

A non-Segwit node can always validate transactions that are relevant to them. They do not validate the witness portion of Segwit transactions. They also do not generate Segwit addresses, nor do they participate in Segwit transactions. What you're talking about is moot.

What part of 'fully-validating node' do you not understand?

i think exstasie has been spoonfed by lauda or the people that spoonfed lauda.. because it seems that exstasie is saying the same illogical rhetoric as lauda and the motley crew he assoociates with, who are failing at convincing people that softforks do not effect true full node distribution count.

give it a few days and exstasie may also fail by saying that 'pruned and no witness archiving is no issue/risk to full nodes'. if so then he is obviously reading the 'Lauda script'

the more simpler explanation for them to see logic.. it to make it sound like a joke rather then a stab in the brain.
"when is a full-validating node not a full-validating node?.........."

[hv_]

its hopeless, you will forever believe 8MB blocks would break bitcoin.

They would. Even a 2 MB block size limit could, but that's what the 'hacky workaround' with those limitations is all about. It is you who does not know things, and it is you who is being fed lies. Do you even know what the difference between linear and quadratic scaling means? Have you even heard of the big O?  

bitcoin runs on a raspberry pi.. with the new libsecp256k1 it makes validating alot faster, so that means 2mb is no problem. especially on standard computers that are less then 10 years old (basic majority) and still ok for older computers and the said raspberry Pi.. but he Lauda thinks everyone should stick to Pi or jump to massive servers.. he cannot see the normal home computer category in the middle

the only time that linear vs quadratic becomes a noticable problem is not really today.. but when LN becomes a thing. when they will be throwing out LARGE settlement transactions.

the linear vs quadratic debate is not about normal user transactions.. but about preventing a bottleneck to allow LN to happen smoothly. in the future.
i feel sorry when people think its their right to try dissing bitcoin to try to sway people to think all these new features are needed to move people onto sidechains and second layer solutions which wont be as secure or distributed.

Cristal claer, its all about taking over control by increasing the grade of complexity and mess around with regulations like some magic numbers 1mb...  Then barking at all others , laudating own stuff and rule by dividing.

[Lauda]

Cristal claer, its all about taking over control by increasing the grade of complexity and mess around with regulations like some magic numbers 1mb...  Then barking at all others , laudating own stuff and rule by dividing.

Satoshi's original plan was for Lauda's cat to take over the network, not the 'gavinista'. Did you not know this?

I predict the Gavinista Jihad against segwit will be just as successful as the one against OP_CLTV.  That is, not at all.

I was told by the 'Gavinista' that Bitcoin is practically dead. Why is the price going up I'm pretty certain that a certain 'group' of people at a certain subreddit don't even care, as they continue with ad hominem and ETH promotion.
Things would be much simpler if the remaining 'opposers' just accepted Segwit at the moment. You can then focus on a HF afterwards. What Antpool is trying to do now does not help the situation at all. The network was practically at a point where consensus has been met. With KNC gone, Classic is completely done.

[hv_]

Cristal claer, its all about taking over control by increasing the grade of complexity and mess around with regulations like some magic numbers 1mb...  Then barking at all others , laudating own stuff and rule by dividing.

Satoshi's original plan was for Lauda's cat to take over the network, not the 'gavinista'. Did you not know this?

I predict the Gavinista Jihad against segwit will be just as successful as the one against OP_CLTV.  That is, not at all.

I was told by the 'Gavinista' that Bitcoin is practically dead. Why is the price going up I'm pretty certain that a certain 'group' of people at a certain subreddit don't even care, as they continue with ad hominem and ETH promotion.
Things would be much simpler if the remaining 'opposers' just accepted Segwit at the moment. You can then focus on a HF afterwards. What Antpool is trying to do now does not help the situation at all. The network was practically at a point where consensus has been met. With KNC gone, Classic is completely done.

Again, I feel divided by you and I m not.
I KNOW 'core' is doing very good job, most of the time and GMax is a really strong thinker.
I ve seen P. Wullie and Gavin both and both are really persons I like.
Further the topic is in fact not so dividing as well its almost just about the timing where it differs.
So close I d just like to see a working compromis where core moves the HF best in one go with SW and if SW is not fully tested and ready a 2MB or best no limit ( I do not like magic numbers) before just to fix really the fee issue and get a signal out, bitcoiners are ALL on track again.

Easy & Cheers

[Cryddit]

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.

You write as though you are under the impression that more than 10% of Antpool's hash rate isn't owned by a single business.

What one miner decides is what 90+% of Antpool's mining power will do.  And I'd bet on 90% of the stuff he DOESN'T own just sucking along for the ride.

[iCEBREAKER]

I was told by the 'Gavinista' that Bitcoin is practically dead. Why is the price going up I'm pretty certain that a certain 'group' of people at a certain subreddit don't even care, as they continue with ad hominem and ETH promotion.

Things would be much simpler if the remaining 'opposers' just accepted Segwit at the moment. You can then focus on a HF afterwards. What Antpool is trying to do now does not help the situation at all. The network was practically at a point where consensus has been met. With KNC gone, Classic is completely done.

It's nice that Bitcoin now has its own supervillains.

External enemies like Alistair Darling provide only limited drama, while our homegrown baddie coalition of Hearn/Gavin/Armstrong/Ver entertain us on a daily basis.

EG, https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/736274071113977856

Epic clownage ensues.  Can't wait until Samson piles on!

[BitUsher]

But again, for the same number of economic transactions, The Omnibus SegWit Changeset actually increases the bandwidth and storage burden upon fully-validating nodes.

This increase is very small and has some tremendous advantages like disincentivizing UTXO bloat and encouraging more secure P2SH for payments to script hashes . Doing this with a softfork doesn't exclude older txs but gives discounts to those who are more secure and don't bloat the UTXO set. Additional benefits include Script versioning that allows for other benefits like Schnorr signatures and MAST.

The fact that you ignore these facts when you criticize the slight increase in relative bandwidth overhead is a bit troubling.

The only possible incentives for operating a non-mining, fully-validating node are the ones you mentioned earlier - security and altruism. Well, maybe the ability to handle your transactions without needing to rely on others. Nevertheless, you don't get a share of the monetary incentives under any scenario. (kinda sad nodes are not renumerated, maybe someday the next satoshi will figure that problem out).

The LN is the solution to incentivize running fully validated nodes by sharing some tx revenue with the nodes.

[Carlton Banks]

its hopeless, you will forever believe 8MB blocks would break bitcoin.

They would. Even a 2 MB block size limit could, but that's what the 'hacky workaround' with those limitations is all about. It is you who does not know things, and it is you who is being fed lies. Do you even know what the difference between linear and quadratic scaling means? Have you even heard of the big O?  

bitcoin runs on a raspberry pi.. with the new libsecp256k1 it makes validating alot faster, so that means 2mb is no problem. especially on standard computers that are less then 10 years old (basic majority) and still ok for older computers and the said raspberry Pi.. but hey, Lauda thinks everyone should stick to Pi or jump to massive servers.. he cannot see the normal home computer category in the middle

lol at Mr. "facts & figures", libsecp256k1 (designed by your supposed SegWit "villains" , Pieter Wuille & gmaxwell) customised the ECDSA functions needed for Intel CPUs, not for ARM CPUs.  

the only time that linear vs quadratic becomes a noticeable problem is not really today.. but when LN becomes a thing. when they will be throwing out LARGE settlement transactions.

the linear vs quadratic debate is not about normal user transactions.. but about preventing a bottleneck to allow LN to happen smoothly. in the future.
i feel sorry when people think its their right to try dissing bitcoin to try to sway people to think all these new features are needed to move people onto sidechains and second layer solutions which wont be as secure or distributed.

So you're against the only realistic way to make Bitcoin scale, as acknowledged by Satoshi in the White Paper? Yeah, we knew already

[BitUsher]

EG, https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/736274071113977856

The irony is the principle people pushing for a HF are some of the same people who recklessly bloat the chain with unneeded txs or don't support capacity we do have. Coinbase with their 2 txs per tx event and Antpool with their excessive empty blocks.

[AlexGR]

I was told by the 'Gavinista' that Bitcoin is practically dead. Why is the price going up I'm pretty certain that a certain 'group' of people at a certain subreddit don't even care, as they continue with ad hominem and ETH promotion.

Things would be much simpler if the remaining 'opposers' just accepted Segwit at the moment. You can then focus on a HF afterwards. What Antpool is trying to do now does not help the situation at all. The network was practically at a point where consensus has been met. With KNC gone, Classic is completely done.

It's nice that Bitcoin now has its own supervillains.

External enemies like Alistair Darling provide only limited drama, while our homegrown baddie coalition of Hearn/Gavin/Armstrong/Ver entertain us on a daily basis.

EG, https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/736274071113977856

Epic clownage ensues.  Can't wait until Samson piles on!

So much "congestion" 

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 60 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 13,560 satoshis (0.05$).

[BitUsher]

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 60 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 13,560 satoshis (0.05$).[/i]

5 pennies is a lot for roger because he wants to resurrect Feed ze birds which is only possible with "free" or extremely cheap tx fees. Thus he has 2 choices , encourage the community to subsidize his project regardless of the externalities and consequences or contribute towards payment channels or the LN. He has chosen the first option for some odd reason . Technical incompetence and /or impatience?

Instead of ranting about how bandwidth, storage and CPU hashing power is going to be amazing in 10 years he would be better off focusing on assisting us get there one way or another rather than making assumptions.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

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.

You write as though you are under the impression that more than 10% of Antpool's hash rate isn't owned by a single business.

What one miner decides is what 90+% of Antpool's mining power will do.  And I'd bet on 90% of the stuff he DOESN'T own just sucking along for the ride.

You're quoting someone who thinks "protecting" an ill-defined "non-mining node decentralization" is worth capping the potential growth of Bitcoin... while keeping ALL of his coins on a centralized exchange. The man's an enigma.

The more cunning of the Blockstream apologists advocate making BTC less competitive to encourage price appreciation in altcoins like Monero. JJG doesn't own any. A mystery wrapped in an enigma. 

[AlexGR]

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 60 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 13,560 satoshis (0.05$).[/i]

5 pennies is a lot for roger because he wants to resurrect Feed ze birds which is only possible with "free" or extremely cheap tx fees. Thus he has 2 choices , encourage the community to subsidize his project regardless of the externalities and consequences or contribute towards payment channels or the LN. He has chosen the first option for some odd reason . Technical incompetence and /or impatience?

Instead of ranting about how bandwidth, storage and CPU hashing power is going to be amazing in 10 years he would be better off focusing on assisting us get there one way or another rather than making assumptions.

The Classic camp could even pretend to be working on scaling, by just ...outsourcing the work done for it.

Things like:

Bounty 1)

"We are paying

a XX BTC bounty if you come up with a 50-100% improvement in signature verification in archX
a XX BTC bounty if you come up with a 200%+ improvement in signature verification in archX"

Bounty 2)

"We are paying

...a XX BTC bounty if you come up with seamlessly integrating GPU resources into signature verification in the bitcoin-qt client, for (opencl, cuda)"

Bounty 3)

"We are paying

...a XX BTC bounty for code that syncs or scales better in the X or Z subsystem.


...and so on. Bounties can go a long way to get things done even when there is lack of coding talent in one's side (as is the case). Instead they are wasting money on useless sybil nodes.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

You write as though you are under the impression that more than 10% of Antpool's hash rate isn't owned by a single business.

What one miner decides is what 90+% of Antpool's mining power will do.  And I'd bet on 90% of the stuff he DOESN'T own just sucking along for the ride.

I claim no knowledge of the details in regards to the extent of Antipool's centralized control over their mining power and the extent to which their business model depends upon independent miners.

And, hopefully, there remains sufficient competition in this mining space in order that stupid miners with destructive ideologies can be priced out of the market when mining either pooles away from them or others begin to mine in order to take away some of the hashing power of the stupid miners that take apparent bitcoin destructive positions.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

You write as though you are under the impression that more than 10% of Antpool's hash rate isn't owned by a single business.

What one miner decides is what 90+% of Antpool's mining power will do.  And I'd bet on 90% of the stuff he DOESN'T own just sucking along for the ride.

You're quoting someone who thinks "protecting" an ill-defined "non-mining node decentralization" is worth capping the potential growth of Bitcoin... while keeping ALL of his coins on a centralized exchange. The man's an enigma.

The more cunning of the Blockstream apologists advocate making BTC less competitive to encourage price appreciation in altcoins like Monero. JJG doesn't own any. A mystery wrapped in an enigma. 

Look at you beastmodeBiscuitGravy, I mean lambie.  Continuously studying me in order attempt to distract with irrelevant skewed personal details.  Why don't you provide some details of your own trading strategy and cryptoholding practices to the extent we may be able to believe any of it?

Let me see if I can summarily respond to your nonsense regarding more or less what I am advocating (one individual, me), at the moment? 

1) I mentioned the mining poole topic because if some dumb ass miner poole leader suggests that his mine poole is going to take some partisan position to not adopt seg wit etc, merely because they want to get a blocksize limit increase - like taking a hostage threat, they are likely going to lose business, either mining power or increased competition against them in other ways. 

2) I advocate that bitcoin is not broken or technically flawed and suggest that there are a lot of solid innovations in this space.  Accordingly, any proposed changes to the status quo should be achieved with evidence and logic in order to persuade that the change is necessary.  If any new proposal cannot achieve an overwhelming level of support by the decentralized powers that be in the bitcoin community, then the proposed change does not get adopted.  Yeah, it can be revised and re-preposed and tweaked and if it is good, then it will get adopted sooner or later, but we do not need to rush into adopting something that is not agreed-to because currently bitcoin is not broken... and if evidence is presented that there is some kind of break of bitcoin, then proposals to fix such break would likely be adopted fairly quickly.