ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[chopstick]

Core supporters trying to blackmail the miners into supporting Segwit even though Core refuses to even bump up the blocksize to 2mb, which is something a huge percentage of the community clearly wants. No double standards here at all! No shady business here at all! It's classic that is conducting the "political coup", 

[Lauda]

I gave up and put him on ignore too, eventually. It was doing nothing but looping and nonsense. For at least a little while I thought the peanut gallery or at least I would learn something... but eventually even I started to get bored.

It's actually pointless. Even if a truck load of evidence, math or whatever he requested fell on his head, he'd still scream something in the lines of:"This is made by Blockstream shills. 5.7 MB blocks 2017!".

Core supporters trying to blackmail the miners into supporting Segwit even though Core refuses to even bump up the blocksize to 2mb, which is something a huge percentage tiny fraction of the community clearly wants. No double standards here at all! No shady business here at all! It's classic that is conducting the "political coup",  

I've fixed the obvious error in your post.

[chopstick]

A tiny fraction, LOL...

Maybe here in censored bitcointard.org land.

[Carlton Banks]

Lol @ "majority of community want a 2MB fork". Since when did a symphony of sock-puppet trolls become the community?

[MeteoImpact]

Core supporters trying to blackmail the miners into supporting Segwit even though Core refuses to even bump up the blocksize to 2mb, which is something a huge percentage tiny fraction of the community clearly wants. No double standards here at all! No shady business here at all! It's classic that is conducting the "political coup",  

I've fixed the obvious error in your post.

Yeah, when people are content with something, they tend to just stay silent and continue on--everything's working, after all. It's the same kind of mentality you get with product reviews where people who encounter no problems and just go on happily using the product don't feel the need to say much, whereas defective units are likely to get a big negative review about the thing being unreliable and having terrible customer service and whatever. Classic supporters generate a lot of noise because they are under the impression that Bitcoin is broken, but most of the people who don't share that opinion? They just continue on with life, maybe thinking about the amazing capabilities we might be seeing in the future of Bitcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

I posted a bit of a Classic take down on /r/btc: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mb6f8/classics_developers_are_almost_completely/d3u3on3  but it seems now that the thread has been hidden.  Nothing new to people here, but I thought it was an okay post.

Oh nice, it's been far too long since somebody made a good old fashioned Domination Post!   

Here is the development team listed in the release notes for Classic 0.12.1: Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Pedro Pinheiro, Tom Zander, Jon Rumion.

Gavin Andresen :Zero commits to Classic 0.12.1.

Jeff Garzik: Only commit to classic ever is changing a URL from Bitcoin Core to classic, no commits in 0.12.1

Pedro Pinheiro: No commits to 0.12.1 (only code contribution I see in Classic was a hardfork status RPC command that was broken; later fixed by ftrader)

Jon Rumion: Appears to have no commits to classic ever (it may be that they're using a pseudonym in the commit history, or only doing testing or binary builds and no development in 0.12.1).

Tom Zander: In 0.12.1 tweaked some documentation, removed a correct warning that classic nodes were operating under rules inconsistent with what a majority hashpower was signaling.

Copied from core: several bug fixes by Wladimir J. van der Laan, Pieter Wuille.

These kinds of comparisons are inherently pretty approximate, but the results are clear.

Quite literally, even though Classic 0.12.1 takes almost nothing from Core 0.12.1, the developers of Bitcoin Core managed to develop more of classic 0.12.1 than most of the "classic" team combined. And Classic's major novel contribution in Classic 0.12.1 is a clear anti-feature that hides useful information from the user.

In the last month, across all branches, Classic has merged 1 pull request, and had zero new unmerged proposals. By comparison, Core has merged 87 in the same period and 33 propose. Classic has fallen behind protocol development: failing to merge BIP 68 and CSV friends so far, though Core kindly wrote it for them.

To each their own-- they're not bad people for not getting anything done there. But this idea in /r/btc that classic is a functional competing system, just isn't supported by the data. A lot of allegations are made in /r/btc that Core has bad qualities or is unenjoyable to work with, but the reality is that core is very effective and vigorous, and classic is .. not.

This is precisely the outcome you get when you don't have a large, experienced, vibrant team that cares deeply about Bitcoin and the technology supporting the system. And it is the perfectly predictable outcome when someone tries to stage a political coup to over-ride the technical and fundamental-value based reality; and kick out a large and successful community effort.

Lets stop pretending.

Stick a fork in it, indeed.

[hdbuck]

do you have no faith in the miners judgment??

faith? what is this christianity !?

Nah this is bitcoin.  

[Lauda]

do you have no faith in the miners judgment??

faith? what is this christianity !?

I don't even know how I missed that. Placing your "faith" in the miners in a system that is supposed to be trustless. What could possibly go wrong. Seems like they've forgotten that one of the main ideas of Bitcoin is not having to place trust in anyone.

Oh nice, it's been far too long since somebody made a good old fashioned Domination Post!   Cool

Lets stop pretending.
Stick a fork in it, indeed.

How can this be; I was told by Veritas that Bitcoin would die without 2 MB blocks and that DASH would be the next top cryptocurrency???  

[MeteoImpact]

do you have no faith in the miners judgment??

faith? what is this christianity !?

I don't even know how I missed that. Placing your "faith" in the miners in a system that is supposed to be trustless. What could possibly go wrong. Seems like they've forgotten that one of the main ideas of Bitcoin is not having to place trust in anyone.

Incoming Classic_, "argument", about how the, "Blockstream cult", is worse and claims that gmaxwell is the puppetmaster pulling the strings of dozens of independent developers. 

[JayJuanGee]

As an aside, the totally offtopic posts that have nothing at all to do with classic, even in passing are getting pretty irritating. I've started reporting them to mods.

When we were in the sub $400s, I had frequently predicted that if we experience a considerable upward BTC price explosion (implying an amount of 50% or more), then probably a lot of the whiners would shut up... especially the ones who were being driven by price stagnation frustration (and desires for a considerable upward price correction, as has been in the waiting for nearly 2 years).

Possibly I was kind of wrong about the whining disappearing - because it seems that we are currently experiencing close to a 50% upward price correction from the sub $400 arena, and quite a bit of whining continues, but I'm sure that a lot of them that remain are either paid shills or somehow invested in the failure of BTC or otherwise somewhat deluded by the prior misinformation from XT/Classic folks that they believed to be true.

[JayJuanGee]

A tiny fraction, LOL...

Maybe here in censored bitcointard.org land.

Lauda should have corrected the statement to say  "a tiny very vocal fraction" - which still remains true that they are tiny, and with very big mouths.

[Carlton Banks]

Incoming Classic_, "argument", about how the, "Blockstream cult", is worse and claims that gmaxwell is the puppetmaster pulling the strings of dozens of independent developers. 

You forgot that Core are the real BigBlockers, or that Core started the blocksize war (when in fact, Core finished it ). Presumably this ends with Pieter Wuille being accused of being an actual ninja in the Belgian secret service, who killed Satoshi in his sleep and buried him under his LED disco dancefloor, where the Core team regular party so as to literally dance on Satoshi's grave

[adamstgBit]

A tiny fraction, LOL...

Maybe here in censored bitcointard.org land.

Lauda should have corrected the statement to say  "a tiny very vocal fraction" - which still remains true that they are tiny, and with very big mouths.

this is very untrue
dose no one remember that statement a large amount of large players signed?
lots of big players are for block size incress.
they want blocksize incress because they feel it will allow bitcoin to grow and so there businesses will grow too...

GREED IS GOOD!

[Carlton Banks]

dose no one remember that statement a large amount of large players signed?
lots of big players are for block size incress.
they want blocksize incress because they feel it will allow bitcoin to grow and so there businesses will grow too...

I remember them: corporations (not developers or users) stacked with former employees of PayPal, Goldman Sachs, the Irish Central Bank, WalMart etc. Coinbase were up until recently touting their 100% reserves: apparently, they're now been busted on that false claim, and don't actually operate with 100% reserves.

That's some real classy "big players" you're referring to, big bank gangsters in essence. What a big surprise that they're recommending/funding propaganda for changes to the network that will cripple or kill it.

[iCEBREAKER]

Stick a fork in it, indeed.

How can this be; I was told by Veritas that Bitcoin would die without 2 MB blocks and that DASH would be the next top cryptocurrency???  

DASH and Klassique are both committed to Bitcoin's pre-0.12.1 code, Now & Forever.

Moving forward would require them to (at least implicitly) admit their own devs are inferior to Core's, which is unthinkable given the amount of cognitive dissonance such a paradigm shift would entail.

That means they will never benefit from current efforts to pour a foundation sufficiently sturdy to scale Blockchain^® upon.

No CLTV/CSV for DashHoles and Gavinista dead-enders.

No RBF for those superstitious cargo cultists.

No SEGWIT either, and thus no sidechains or payment channels.  (Good luck with those trusted 3rd party MadoffNodes!  I'm 100% sure tx malleability won't be an issue!  /s)

No crypto chocolate candy from Elements Alpha.  No Schnorr, so no tree signatues.  Those idiots don't even understand the power they are voluntarily relinquishing and advantages they are voluntarily handing (on a silver platter) to Core and Monero.

EDIT: Thank Eris for the bug zapper forum, so we no longer have to put up with sophomoric FSA/SJW idiocy like this:

Market = Organized Violence = Society = Collectivism = Feudalism = Tribute = Patriarchy   

[adamstgBit]

dose no one remember that statement a large amount of large players signed?
lots of big players are for block size incress.
they want blocksize incress because they feel it will allow bitcoin to grow and so there businesses will grow too...

I remember them: corporations (not developers or users) stacked with former employees of PayPal, Goldman Sachs, the Irish Central Bank, WalMart etc. Coinbase recently holding 100% reserves: apparently, they're don't.

That's some real classy "big players" you're referring to, big bank gangsters in essence. What a big surprise that they're recommending/funding propaganda for changes to the network that will cripple or kill it.

blockstream is different.
this time its different.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Lol @ "majority of community want a 2MB fork". Since when did a symphony cacophony of sock-puppet trolls become the community?

[adamstgBit]

Lol @ "majority of community want a 2MB fork". Since when did a symphony cacophony of sock-puppet trolls become the community?

since 2009.
actually more like 2012 thats when the trolls really took over.

[JayJuanGee]

A tiny fraction, LOL...

Maybe here in censored bitcointard.org land.

Lauda should have corrected the statement to say  "a tiny very vocal fraction" - which still remains true that they are tiny, and with very big mouths.

this is very untrue
dose no one remember that statement a large amount of large players signed?
lots of big players are for block size incress.
they want blocksize incress because they feel it will allow bitcoin to grow and so there businesses will grow too...

GREED IS GOOD!

O.k.  

If you think it is relevant, then show the list.

Pursuit of such a topic seems to be a bit outdated, and if the statement and the signed supporters is not current, then why would we believe, necessarily that they still hold such a position. The other thing is that I really have neither seen evidence establishing that bitcoin is in some kind of crisis that actually needs a blocksize increase, so the issue still remains that even if there are still a few "prominent persons" on the supposed list, what are they arguing for exactly? Some kind of variation of XT or classic?

dose no one remember that statement a large amount of large players signed?
lots of big players are for block size incress.
they want blocksize incress because they feel it will allow bitcoin to grow and so there businesses will grow too...

I remember them: corporations (not developers or users) stacked with former employees of PayPal, Goldman Sachs, the Irish Central Bank, WalMart etc. Coinbase were up until recently touting their 100% reserves: apparently, they're now been busted on that false claim, and don't actually operate with 100% reserves.

That's some real classy "big players" you're referring to, big bank gangsters in essence. What a big surprise that they're recommending/funding propaganda for changes to the network that will cripple or kill it.

Oh?  seems like I may have posted before seeing this response, and your response seems to  have adequately addressed this claim from Adam.

[iCEBREAKER]

Introducing Maxwell Maximalism   

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/740124940062576640

in my experience disagreeing with gmaxwell on technical matters, invariably means you are misunderstanding something. even for me.

rbtc FUD machine #REKT