ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Fatman3001]

So, any progress on getting on wavelength with the miners or do we have to start a Core #REKT thread soon.

@Gmaxwell

Have you considered opening dialogue instead of being a dick all the time? I understand many people think you're right in the technical bits, but that's not worth much if people turn to other solutions just because they hate your guts.

Like it or not, people listen to you. It would mean a lot if you were a bit more constructive in these matters.

That you help show that your solutions tackle the issues of concern in a satisfactory way.

In short: Grow the fuck up

(Oh, and did I mention "Don't be a dick"? Well... don't be a dick.)

[1714613360]

1714613360

[1714613360]

1714613360

[1714613360]

1714613360

[btcusury]

Oh but you aren't being a dick, are you, Fatman?

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

If Chinese miners are really out of patience with Core delays the only way you will see it is a drastic increase in Classic nodes in July after the halving. Then Core either forks or the miners will do it for them with Classic. If this is a game of chicken I bet the core devs blink first and decide to hard fork to 2 MB. No one likes to have power taken away from them.

[Fatman3001]

Oh but you aren't being a dick, are you, Fatman?

Always

Fat too

But nobody gives a flying fudge

I'm not going to wreck Bitcoin by being a dick

If I were I might change my ways

[hdbuck]

nothing. will. happen. but. the. ineluctable. fizzling. of. irrelevant. ph0rkers.

[franky1]

are you mindless blockstreamers preparing your next REKT campaign on one of your own?

give it a month and you will either be kicking Luke JR to the curb
or will you give in and accept the hardfork

enjoy your own rhetoric fail where you have to decide either to reinforce you fork hate and kill off lukeJR or backtrack to protect one of your own

[smoothie]

If Chinese miners are really out of patience with Core delays the only way you will see it is a drastic increase in Classic nodes in July after the halving. Then Core either forks or the miners will do it for them with Classic. If this is a game of chicken I bet the core devs blink first and decide to hard fork to 2 MB. No one likes to have power taken away from them.

In either outcome supposedly in your scenarios they would lose power.

Not sure if that was your point.

Full disclosure: I'm on no specific side but the side of bitcoin, as things play out in either direction.

[BitUsher]

If Chinese miners are really out of patience with Core delays the only way you will see it is a drastic increase in Classic nodes in July after the halving. Then Core either forks or the miners will do it for them with Classic. If this is a game of chicken I bet the core devs blink first and decide to hard fork to 2 MB. No one likes to have power taken away from them.

Its economic nodes that matter , another sybil attack with nodes spun up with amazon won't fool the majority of users who don't agree with classic's scaling roadmap.

[MeteoImpact]

Then Core either forks or the miners will do it for them with Classic.

Miners can't fork without the userbase also doing so--not meaningfully, anyhow. There seems to be a misconception that miners are able to, "rewrite", the network rules if enough of them collude, and this simply isn't true. By the logic that miners could force the 2MB block hardfork, they could also decide that the Bitcoin reward per block should increase to 100, because they have majority hashpower and anything they say goes, right?

That's not how it works though. What happens if miners decide to switch to some rules that defy existing consensus rules is that all other nodes--users, merchants, exchanges, other miners--will see their blocks as invalid and reject them, and miners and nodes using the existing consensus rules will continue to build and validate their own valid chain. The forked miners will effectively be mining their own fork that no one else is using, wasting their own hashpower for a no-prize.

Something they could do with majority hashpower is harass the network by building malicious (but valid) blocks--perhaps by not including any transactions at all as a sort of protest. They'd have to be pretty nuts to want to pull shit like this though, as their profits come directly from the value of the Bitcoin they mine.

[franky1]

Then Core either forks or the miners will do it for them with Classic.

Miners can't fork without the userbase also doing so--not meaningfully, anyhow. There seems to be a misconception that miners are able to, "rewrite", the network rules if enough of them collude, and this simply isn't true. By the logic that miners could force the 2MB block hardfork, they could also decide that the Bitcoin reward per block should increase to 100, because they have majority hashpower and anything they say goes, right?

That's not how it works though. What happens if miners decide to switch to some rules that defy existing consensus rules is that all other nodes--users, merchants, exchanges, other miners--will see their blocks as invalid and reject them, and miners and nodes using the existing consensus rules will continue to build and validate their own valid chain. The forked miners will effectively be mining their own fork that no one else is using, wasting their own hashpower for a no-prize.

Something they could do with majority hashpower is harass the network by building malicious (but valid) blocks--perhaps by not including any transactions at all as a sort of protest. They'd have to be pretty nuts to want to pull shit like this though, as their profits come directly from the value of the Bitcoin they mine.

thats why no changes get activated unless there is 75-95% adoption
so far core is not releasing the code.. this prevents even their own fanboys having an individual and independent choice. and this is called "controversy"
however if they released code UNIVERSALLY without controversy.. then you would see impartial decisions being made by users, merchants and miners individually.
people could individually and independently choose core MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE 1mb or core MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE 2mb

then miners would see if there is an uptake. for them to upgrade and show their consensus.. then when it hits a safe number to activate.. it activates..
however with core sticking to 1mb and not releasing code for anything else.. most users wont even bother trying other implementations because its futile because core has the veto power over 37% of nodes
again if they released code UNIVERSALLY without controversy.. then you would see impartial decisions being made by users, merchants and miners.

if users and miners did not want it.. then even with code being available universally the consensus would not be met.
which is where i find it funny. core is not offering decentralized choice. they have decided one route. and their shills went on a rekt campaign to scare people away from trying anything not core.

but i do look forward to the rekt campaigners do the same bullsh*t with luke JR when he releases his independent code the same way hearne and gavin did. it will be funny to see if they give in and support a blockstreamer or throw another one under the bus to protect the one way street

[smoothie]

I know it's "Classic" (and /r/btc) style to spend most of the time talking about Ethereum; but how about we buck that trend and talk about classic instead?

In an ultra rare fit of software development, they've begun to try to add BIP9/68/etc. support to Classic: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/177

But because their "single constant fork" remained anything but and they've diverged from Core and don't seem to know what they're doing-- they've made a fine hairball of it and the tests aren't passing. I wonder if they'll get it working before CSV is live on the network?

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?

Only time will tell, but I guess that would be consistent with their "Classic" naming practice, enh?

Are you the CTO of Blockstream? you don't sound like a CTO  r/btc is where the uncensored bitcoin discussion happens, who cares about ETH, but for the fact that we can learn from their DAO mistakes.

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

You have proof of your claim?

[franky1]

icebreaker and gmaxwell is knee deep in monero.

funny think is monero has the ability of larger blocksize.

can anyone see the hypocrisy

the 2 main people crying out non-core implementations are altcoins (yet classic, xt, bu, bitcoinj, etc all only relay and handle bitcoin data) are the 2 guys that are hoarders of altcoins and that altcoin has the ability of bigger blocks..

[BitUsher]

You have proof of your claim?

He is likely speculating. Roger claims to almost completely be invested in Bitcoin. Here is the evidence we do know -

Roger Has definitely made a large investment in Ripple of $250,000 in XRP  -
http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-fines-ripple-labs-700000-bank-secrecy-act/

Yet he claims to not know anything about Ethereum , Ripple and Maidsafe - \
https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-roger-ver-the-first-bitcoin-angel-investor-ask-me-anything-t2719-30.html

I don't know much about them, so I don't have a strong opinion, but I haven't seen anything that would make me think that they could surpass Bitcoin.

It is interesting to note that before this statement he was happy to pump ethereum in this video -
https://youtu.be/GRIJ_jpmwzo?t=2m19s

Despite not knowing much about them. Which would lead one to believe based on that date that he was likely an initial EThereum investor.

Personally, I believe Roger has enough of a net worth that I actually do trust his statement that most of his investment are still in bitcoin but I wouldn't be surprised if he has been buying ethereum lately to hedge his bets. There is also strong evidence that many Classic/XT/BU crowd is invested in Ethereum as it is often pumped on rogers forum and r/btc, additionally many of them readily admit to buying ethereum and sometimes selling all their btc for ethereum so it is of no surprise they are so pessimistic and have no qualms about going negative.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I know it's "Classic" (and /r/btc) style to spend most of the time talking about Ethereum; but how about we buck that trend and talk about classic instead?

In an ultra rare fit of software development, they've begun to try to add BIP9/68/etc. support to Classic: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/177

But because their "single constant fork" remained anything but and they've diverged from Core and don't seem to know what they're doing-- they've made a fine hairball of it and the tests aren't passing. I wonder if they'll get it working before CSV is live on the network?

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?

Only time will tell, but I guess that would be consistent with their "Classic" naming practice, enh?

Are you the CTO of Blockstream? you don't sound like a CTO   r/btc is where the uncensored bitcoin discussion happens, who cares about ETH, but for the fact that we can learn from their DAO mistakes.

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

You have proof of your claim?

I didn't mean for that to sound as aggressive as it did.

Services that I wanted to launch on Bitcoin aren’t possible now because of the artificial suppression of the blocksize. So maybe I will be launching some things on Ethereum [. . .]” – Roger Ver

If scaling bitcoin quickly means there is a risk of [Bitcoin] becoming Paypal 2.0, I think that risk is worth taking because we will always be able to make a Bitcoin 3.0 that [. . .] has the properties that we want.

But these sorts of statements seem pretty reckless/thoughtless. I'd be very curious to hear his opinion on the Ethereum hard frok, political theorist/technical wizard that he is.

Edit: I didn't mean for this to sound as snide as it did. I guess this is just who I am. I'm trying to change...

[hdbuck]

are you mindless blockstreamers preparing your next REKT campaign on one of your own?

give it a month and you will either be kicking Luke JR to the curb
or will you give in and accept the hardfork

enjoy your own rhetoric fail where you have to decide either to reinforce you fork hate and kill off lukeJR or backtrack to protect one of your own

lmao, quoting this dipshit for posterity. or say one month heh.

ffs hopeless squeaking prick. fuck you.

[franky1]

lmao, quoting this dipshit for posterity. or say one month heh.

ffs hopeless squeaking prick. fuck you.

ok then.. lets get an answer from you
luke JR is going to release some code.. but it wont be core code, but independant. just so that he can forfil his agreement.

will you
A) accept luke Jrs implementation as something "bitcoin" even if it has the hardfork
b) do a REKT campaign saying luke Jr released an altcoin, the same way as you lot said gavin and hearne did..

come on open your mouth and show your opinion.. A or B
go on. just answer A or B

[JayJuanGee]

lmao, quoting this dipshit for posterity. or say one month heh.

ffs hopeless squeaking prick. fuck you.

ok then.. lets get an answer from you
luke JR is going to release some code.. but it wont be core code, but independant. just so that he can forfil his agreement.

will you
A) accept luke Jrs implementation as something "bitcoin" even if it has the hardfork
b) do a REKT campaign saying luke Jr released an altcoin, the same way as you lot said gavin and hearne did..

come on open your mouth and show your opinion.. A or B
go on. just answer A or B

Can't we see what Luke Jr. releases first?

  I doubt that Luke Jr. is going to include hardfork language in the coding unless it appears that there is consensus for such... I thought that Luke Jr. already pretty much said that a hardfork would not be necessary in order to implement a 2 mg increase in the blocksize limit, so long as there is consensus for such protocol changes?  And, even right now, there doesn't even seem to be any kind of consensus that an increase in the blocksize is actually needed prior to seg wit going live for some time.

[franky1]

Can't we see what Luke Jr. releases first?

  I doubt that Luke Jr. is going to include hardfork language in the coding unless it appears that there is consensus for such... I thought that Luke Jr. already pretty much said that a hardfork would not be necessary in order to implement a 2 mg increase in the blocksize limit, so long as there is consensus for such protocol changes?  And, even right now, there doesn't even seem to be any kind of consensus that an increase in the blocksize is actually needed prior to seg wit going live for some time.

luke JR was explaining that segwit has changed the parameter. there is no longer a MAX_BLOCK_SIZE variable in segwit
(well its there just renamed)

instead segwit is set as MAX_BLOCK_SERIALIZED_SIZE = 4000000 (all data tx and signatures)
but to not break consensus and cause a hard fork, segwit works by separating the tx and witness
this is done by
MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000
meaning traditional transactions(full tx of nonsegwit) and the non-witness(tx part of segwit) fits into MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE
leaving 3mb spare for the signature area.

in short/layman MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE is the same as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

now to increase the capacity for traditional transactions is to increase the MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE to 2000000
this will however need consensus because it is a hardfork(basically its the same as other imps increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to 2000000)

for luke to forfil his agreement as a *cough*"independent core contributor"*cough* he has to release code for the MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE=2000000
currently this (MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE=1000000(1mb hard block))
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/395521854efd5804433d57aaf69f46676e4b6efc/src/consensus/consensus.h
needs to change

[smoothie]

icebreaker and gmaxwell is knee deep in monero.

funny think is monero has the ability of larger blocksize.

can anyone see the hypocrisy

the 2 main people crying out non-core implementations are altcoins (yet classic, xt, bu, bitcoinj, etc all only relay and handle bitcoin data) are the 2 guys that are hoarders of altcoins and that altcoin has the ability of bigger blocks..

How is it hypocrisy if they believe different solutions regarding block size should be associated with a particular project?

Just curious

[franky1]

icebreaker and gmaxwell is knee deep in monero.

funny think is monero has the ability of larger blocksize.

can anyone see the hypocrisy

the 2 main people crying out non-core implementations are altcoins (yet classic, xt, bu, bitcoinj, etc all only relay and handle bitcoin data) are the 2 guys that are hoarders of altcoins and that altcoin has the ability of bigger blocks..

How is it hypocrisy if they believe different solutions regarding block size should be associated with a particular project?

Just curious

read the last 120 pages of them crying that hardforks, big blocks, altcoins and anything else not blockstream is bad..