ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Adrian-x]

It's a totally relevant! Rather than test LN and its base code SegWit, (bitcoin's DAO), in the real world befor deploying it on a $10B network

LN's basecode is not Segwit. I'm surprised that you have been fed false information. Segwit is not Bitcoin's DAO and is not even as complicated as some people say that it is. Most of the codebase is just automated testing. LN could be created (AFAIK) without Segwit but it would be much harder.

why shouldn't SegWit be deployed and tested in the real world on an altcoin before being implemented in Bitcoin?

Nobody is preventing altcoins from implementing Segwit. I'm 99% of sure that if the Core developers decided to wait for this 'testing period' that the 'shill campaign' would complain everywhere that Core is stalling progress, fee market panic and other rubbish.

I know, sure SegWit comes bundled with a bunch of other changes among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant. No need to trust me but it's way more complicated that you alluding too.  

I don't see any shilling campaigns maybe you can enlighten us? I do see a bunch of digital influences paid by huge corporate sponsors to create FUD around the dangers of bigger blocks.

I'm glad to see there is no resistance to altcoins implementing Segwit, I suggest Core got on that and do some real world testing before messing with Bitcoin implementation, what do you think about deploying it on the Litecoin network? it shares a lot of fundamentals with bitcoin.

[1715011828]

1715011828

[1715011828]

1715011828

[1715011828]

1715011828

[1715011828]

1715011828

[1715011828]

1715011828

[1715011828]

1715011828

[Carlton Banks]

I don't see any shilling campaigns maybe you can enlighten us? I do see a bunch of digital influences paid by huge corporate sponsors to create FUD around the dangers of bigger blocks.

Because you're one of those shills, duhhhh. Or more likely just a useful idiot, judging by your output in the past

I'm glad to see there is no resistance to altcoins implementing Segwit, I suggest Core got on that and do some real world testing before messing with Bitcoin implementation, what do you think about deploying it on the Litecoin network? it shares a lot of fundamentals with bitcoin.

Been running on it's own testnet, and then on the actual testnet, for months and months and months. Troll harder, you might get that Goldman Sachs share option you were promised

[Adrian-x]

Roger Ver is knee deep in Ethers. Don't pretend that place isn't what it is.

I'm not invested in ETH, so no I haven't noted the fascination it may just be me self censoring and ignoring all the inappropriate headlines.

I did see this though, censoring in full force over on r/bitcoin so maybe you're dreaming.  r/bitcoin is OK discussing ETH but not discussing the topic of moving the block limit.

[Adrian-x]

Troll harder, you might get that Goldman Sachs share option you were promised

LOL way to deflect attention but honestly, Goldman Sachs, AXA, PwC, Innovation Endeavors whats the difference - you're the one backing the changes to Bitcoin protocol funded by existing elite.

FYI a shill is paid to push a biased opinion, it is the antithesis of a bitcoin investment who wants to maximize the return on their bitcoin investment. Full disclosure I'm invested in the successful deployment and deployment of the Bitcoin network for the benefit of all users without bias.

Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Who ensures that LN does not become bitcoins DAO like experience?

That's not really relevant here. Let's all stop any advanced development because an incompetent team failed with their pump & dump coin? I think not. Peer reviews and extensive testing 'ensure' that. Although one can never be 100% sure.

It's a totally relevant! Rather than test LN and its base code SegWit, (bitcoin's DAO), in the real world befor deploying it on a $10B network, why shouldn't SegWit be deployed and tested in the real world on an altcoin before being implemented in Bitcoin?

It's being tested on the Elements Alpha sidechain for over 12 months, segnet for 6 months and now on testnet3 for the last 7 weeks ... so what kind of altcoin did you have in mind specifically that would be needed in addition to these?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Roger Ver is knee deep in Ethers. Don't pretend that place isn't what it is.

Only the knees eh?

I had a feeling it was a little deeper.

[AliceGored]

Who ensures that LN does not become bitcoins DAO like experience?

That's not really relevant here. Let's all stop any advanced development because an incompetent team failed with their pump & dump coin? I think not. Peer reviews and extensive testing 'ensure' that. Although one can never be 100% sure.

It's a totally relevant! Rather than test LN and its base code SegWit, (bitcoin's DAO), in the real world befor deploying it on a $10B network, why shouldn't SegWit be deployed and tested in the real world on an altcoin before being implemented in Bitcoin?

It's being tested on the Elements Alpha sidechain for over 12 months, segnet for 6 months and now on testnet3 for the last 7 weeks ... so what kind of altcoin did you have in mind specifically that would be needed in addition to these?

Preferably one containing and transferring enough value to be worth attacking.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Luke-Jr ventures out to humbly hold court with this guy for advice on the 2017 HF, really guise?

http://btcbase.org/log/

thestringpuller: cause there is no way TRB will ever enforce segwit, so there is no way it can ever truly verify a segwit output was spent "legitimately"
mircea_popescu: thestringpuller the derp in question can just spend again normally and his coins will be visible.
mircea_popescu: trb has no notion of "coin history". nor should it. because taint is not a thing.
thestringpuller: gotcha. just never have anyone spend to your from a fake address.
mircea_popescu: moreover, there ISNT, in general, and for very good reasons, a way to verify segwit crapolade.
mircea_popescu: which is what it aims to be, a sort of "let's dao bitcoin"
thestringpuller: TMSR rule of thumb: "Never accept non standard transactions" ?
mircea_popescu: pretty much.
thestringpuller: gotcha. thanks for clarity. mod6 ^^^ nvm question has been answered.
mircea_popescu: but this said, yes it is deeply irresponsible for anyone to use prb clients. this doesn't just mean 13, or 12, or 10. ANY of them.
mircea_popescu: they keep adding shit, but it's been shitsoup for years now.
mod6: thestringpuller: np.
mod6: if we needed to add code everytime these gnomes comeup with a new crapolade, that's all we'd ever be doing.
thestringpuller: i just don't want them to add something in a "fork" that allows TMSR to get scammed.
thestringpuller: but I think at that point BTC is dead
mircea_popescu: and in other lulz, ro chicks trying hard :http://fabulousmuses.net/2016/06/marina-yachting-summer-trends.html
mircea_popescu: mod6 the main concern is that their bullshit will "accidentally" start fabricating coins.
mircea_popescu: nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name.
BingoBoingo: thestringpuller: From what I understand Segwit to a normal 1xxx adress requires a signature in the blockchain so when segwit stops being miner enforced the recieved transaction would still be, even though it came from freemoneyshitsoup.
thestringpuller: BingoBoingo: AHA!
mircea_popescu: yeah, except the next stop is for shitsoup to put out more coins than it got in.
thestringpuller: elaborate?
mircea_popescu: you been watching the dao thing ?
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name. << totally agree.
mircea_popescu: segwit is EXACTLY "dao for bitcoin".

[AlexGR]

From what I hear popescu is a coder and has lots of money due to high stake in BTC. Why isn't he coding or funding an alternative client to core, if he thinks core is bullshit/shitsoup? That would be more productive than complaining, surely.

(I'm cautious about new code as well - it might introduce issues - and I don't like the feeling of "let's pray it'll work out ok").

[iCEBREAKER]

In a stunning coincidence, segwit was merged just in time for the On-chain Scaling conference's first day.

I think the exact time might have been when Peter_R's amateur comedy routine started.






Haven't seen someone get REKT that bad since Sansa emerged as the Hammer of Winterfell.

[hdbuck]

From what I hear popescu is a coder and has lots of money due to high stake in BTC. Why isn't he coding or funding an alternative client to core, if he thinks core is bullshit/shitsoup? That would be more productive than complaining, surely.

(I'm cautious about new code as well - it might introduce issues - and I don't like the feeling of "let's pray it'll work out ok").

http://thebitcoin.foundation/index.html

[Lauda]

I know, sure SegWit comes bundled with a bunch of other changes among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant. No need to trust me but it's way more complicated that you alluding too.  

We are talking about very important changes here that will be of benefit in the future. Segwit is by no means a simple solution, but it is far from being as complex as r/btc people and/or Classic supporters make it out to be. They've started spamming that Segwit is Bitcoin's DAO. This is how desperate and stupid they truly are.

I don't see any shilling campaigns maybe you can enlighten us? I do see a bunch of digital influences paid by huge corporate sponsors to create FUD around the dangers of bigger blocks.

The campaign has been going on for months. It is quite obvious once you get a hang of it.

I'm glad to see there is no resistance to altcoins implementing Segwit, I suggest Core got on that and do some real world testing before messing with Bitcoin implementation, what do you think about deploying it on the Litecoin network? it shares a lot of fundamentals with bitcoin.

The Bitcoin Core code is open-source anyways. However, as I've already said, I expect people to attack the Core developers in that section and blame 'Blockstream' for stalling.

[gmaxwell]

among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant.

What are you talking about?


Re altcoins, they're welcome to take our open code, but most altcoins don't have active development teams... and most of them are based on seriously outdated Bitcoin Core codebases and have serious bugs (either ones we fixed long ago-- or ones they added themselves). Considering that no one has generally exploited them suggests they're not very useful test points.

And what does any of this have to do with classic other than classic being seriously out of date?

Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.

You do? Oh. So perhaps you can tell me who is funding classic developers Zander and Gavin?

[gmaxwell]

I also wonder, since they already released a "0.12.1" which was, if anything, an anti-0.12.1 (ripped out warnings related to the 0.12.1 features it lacked!)-- are they going to call their kludge port 0.13 and claim to be leaders in Bitcoin innovation-- while lacking the half year of development from dozens of people and dozens of features that will be in the real 0.13?

Why do things by half measures? Behold, Bitcoin Classic 1.1.0!

Mark your calendars, lets see how long until there are sock accounts posting that Bitcoin Core is an outdated version, since Classic is 1.1.0... (while it's still actually a crappy barely maintained fork of an outdated copy of Bitcoin Core)

Predictably dishonest people are predictable dishonest.

[renem]

I suppose we bought into different monetary systems then, since my understanding going into it was different. I think that Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus. I actually perceive Bitcoin as being the evolution of governance. Voluntary and decentralized non geographically bound governance, the evolution of the modern democracy if you will into something better and superior Bitcoin is not freedom, there are rules.. Bitcoin is trust. Or trustlessness for that matter.So whatever blockstream or anyone says, in Bitcoin I trust.

[Lauda]

among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant.

What are you talking about?

This didn't make sense to me either. I wonder where he got this from? I guess it is only a matter of time before Classic supporters start running around and screaming 'LN is Bitcoin's DAO' (since they're doing the same for Segwit). As for anyone who is reading: This is how you internally cause damage to open-source projects. Complaining and spreading FUD about current and future developments and not contributing a single bit.

You do? Oh. So perhaps you can tell me who is funding classic developers Zander and Gavin?

In the eyes of the "anti-Core" 'group', as long as they're not part of Blockstream they are fine.

Predictably dishonest people are predictable dishonest.

This version numbering is truly dishonest.

Voluntary and decentralized non geographically bound governance

Exactly. Decentralization, censorship resistance, immutability and such are the values that need to be kept in place.

Why does this thread still even exist?

I assume to spread the word of their misdoings and correct false information.

[franky1]

oh lauda.. i have seen you say the words "immutable" several times this last fortnight.

i know its your buzzword of the week .. but here is a lesson
bitcoin is not immutable.

bitcoin does change and will change. you are actually in favour of having many changes without the need of user consensus. you are actually in favour of letting coders bribe users and blackmail miners to ensure bitcoin changes.
its time you realise and accept that..

bitcoin is not immutable.. only bitcoins archived data((past tense)blockchain data) is immutable,
so try to only use your weekly catchphrases and buzzwords in the context of what they actually mean..

EG the 7 years of archival data(past tense) is immutable. but bitcoins rules are mutable, and the live network of bitcoins blockchain as a whole changes ~6 times every hour due to new data being added.

i think you need to relax the usage of the word immutable unless your talking past tense about the archived blockchain data

oh and it may be worth only saying immutable in regards to blocks that are atleast a few confirms deep or older, due to the whole orphan risk..

[Carlton Banks]

It's being tested on the Elements Alpha sidechain for over 12 months, segnet for 6 months and now on testnet3 for the last 7 weeks ... so what kind of altcoin did you have in mind specifically that would be needed in addition to these?

Preferably one containing and transferring enough value to be worth attacking.

MAJOR CONTRADICTION ALERT

If that's true, how is that people like you have used nothing but words to attack Segwit, then? You could've used the coding geniuses behind your preferred route for Bitcoin development to demonstrate how fragile Segwit is on the network.

Why, with months of opportunity, hasn't the public testing of Segwit been successfully attacked or exploited by any interested party? (let alone those Core detractors who claim they have coding talent)

[JayJuanGee]

among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant.

What are you talking about?


Re altcoins, they're welcome to take our open code, but most altcoins don't have active development teams... and most of them are based on seriously outdated Bitcoin Core codebases and have serious bugs (either ones we fixed long ago-- or ones they added themselves). Considering that no one has generally exploited them suggests they're not very useful test points.

And what does any of this have to do with classic other than classic being seriously out of date?

Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.

You do? Oh. So perhaps you can tell me who is funding classic developers Zander and Gavin?

Great summary of some of your earlier technical points concerning the failure and/or refusal of either classic to update their code and similar happenings with a lot of these various alts that are neither updating their code nor even holding enough value in order that some serious attacker would want to attack them.

So, sure, in that regard, as you assert, these various alts are not going to be decent testing grounds for something that is seriously being considered for implementation in bitcoin in part based on their lack of updated code, lack of value and lack of ongoing attention and development.

In that regard, Bitcoin has a whole hell-of-a lot more at stake in the event of some kind of an attack were to take place and more likely to get attention for an attack because bitcoin has a relatively high and liquid value, and so bitcoin is more likely to be a lot more real world when it comes to having a decent testing ground once it goes live and attention to the coding issues and potential vulnerabilities before the code actually goes live.

[AlexGR]

Why, with months of opportunity, hasn't the public testing of Segwit been successfully attacked or exploited by any interested party? (let alone those Core detractors who claim they have coding talent)

One possible reason is that the impact of using such an exploit when it has been mass adopted, can be far more beneficial for the attacker and far more damaging for bitcoin itself, compared to a testnet exploit scenario.

If I were a hacker, I would use any testnet period not to report bugs, but to withhold them and then either sell the exploits or front-run the market by shorting the coin prior to actually exploiting the bug.

Without serious bug bounties, I don't think there's enough incentive to actually report serious bugs.