ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[squatter]

Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.

I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.

On what possible basis?  BSV has ~650 nodes.  LN has ~6500 nodes.  It's pretty clear which one the market prefers.

Economic incentives, usability and security level will decide that.

I think we'll see in the coming years that BSV simply isn't sustainable.

It's funny that you mention "economic incentives." A deflationary supply with no fee pressure? 1 TB block sizes in the next 2 years? How is that supposed to incentivize miners to secure the chain? It sounds ludicrous.

[1714811074]

1714811074

[1714811074]

1714811074

[hv_]

Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.

I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.

On what possible basis?  BSV has ~650 nodes.  LN has ~6500 nodes.  It's pretty clear which one the market prefers.

Economic incentives, usability and security level will decide that.

I think we'll see in the coming years that BSV simply isn't sustainable.

It's funny that you mention "economic incentives." A deflationary supply with no fee pressure? 1 TB block sizes in the next 2 years? How is that supposed to incentivize miners to secure the chain? It sounds ludicrous.

Compared to LN - easy to sustain.

Compared to 1megSegshit coin - easy after as well cause lot of business will use BSV also as audit / time stamping layer, the only open scalable blockchain the industries are looking for, and can adopt cause the impl is close to spec - legit as such - and does not (need to) change. LN and other 2nd layer stuff are not 10y old and tested Bitcoin and are at experimental stage at best with poor level of safety for any industrial use and legal implications that make any adoption challenging.

[squatter]

Economic incentives, usability and security level will decide that.

I think we'll see in the coming years that BSV simply isn't sustainable.

It's funny that you mention "economic incentives." A deflationary supply with no fee pressure? 1 TB block sizes in the next 2 years? How is that supposed to incentivize miners to secure the chain? It sounds ludicrous.

Compared to LN - easy to sustain.

Compared to 1megSegshit coin - easy after as well cause lot of business will use BSV also as audit / time stamping layer, the only open scalable blockchain the industries are looking for, and can adopt cause the impl is close to spec - legit as such - and does not (need to) change. LN and other 2nd layer stuff are not 10y old and tested Bitcoin and are at experimental stage at best with poor level of safety for any industrial use and legal implications that make any adoption challenging.

You're just dodging the issue, though. It doesn't even matter if everyone in the world wants to use BSV. The entire design is based on the idea of not allowing scarcity of block space. There is no way to pressure fees above zero. How the hell are miners going to be paid? Or do BSV miners just secure the chain out of the goodness of their hearts?

BSV is setting itself up to implode when the mining subsidy starts winding down. Not that it matters to Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre. They're just here for the cash grab.

[hv_]

Economic incentives, usability and security level will decide that.

I think we'll see in the coming years that BSV simply isn't sustainable.

It's funny that you mention "economic incentives." A deflationary supply with no fee pressure? 1 TB block sizes in the next 2 years? How is that supposed to incentivize miners to secure the chain? It sounds ludicrous.

Compared to LN - easy to sustain.

Compared to 1megSegshit coin - easy after as well cause lot of business will use BSV also as audit / time stamping layer, the only open scalable blockchain the industries are looking for, and can adopt cause the impl is close to spec - legit as such - and does not (need to) change. LN and other 2nd layer stuff are not 10y old and tested Bitcoin and are at experimental stage at best with poor level of safety for any industrial use and legal implications that make any adoption challenging.

You're just dodging the issue, though. It doesn't even matter if everyone in the world wants to use BSV. The entire design is based on the idea of not allowing scarcity of block space. There is no way to pressure fees above zero. How the hell are miners going to be paid? Or do BSV miners just secure the chain out of the goodness of their hearts?

BSV is setting itself up to implode when the mining subsidy starts winding down. Not that it matters to Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre. They're just here for the cash grab.

Bitcoin 's inflation is going down over the decades. Fees are the incentives for miners and this only works with masses and huge blocks, where all txs pay sub cent amounts but the sum is good enough for miners to run.

With 1mb u need to get only monster fees to run btc sustainable but no masses that can afford these onchain secure txs. Not Bitcoin. U ll give up that business to a few 2nd layer middle men - not Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

With 1mb u need to get only monster fees to run btc sustainable but no masses that can afford these onchain secure txs. Not Bitcoin. U ll give up that business to a few 2nd layer middle men - not Bitcoin.

Speaking of fees, how many users would BSV need to have at BSV's current average fee to match the current fees miners get from BTC?  

And what makes you think that BSV would be the first choice for people who don't want to pay the fees on the BTC chain?  There are thousands of other coins.  The only remarkable thing about BSV is the fraudulent clown at the helm trying to convince everyone they're supposedly satoshi.  Not exactly a selling point.  Beyond that, it's another coin that's slightly above Dogecoin in terms of nodecount.  Why should anyone care?

And if by some miracle BSV does become popular and start filling blocks, it's going to be a few big companies running what few nodes remain.  You will destroy any shred of decentralisation.

[hv_]

With 1mb u need to get only monster fees to run btc sustainable but no masses that can afford these onchain secure txs. Not Bitcoin. U ll give up that business to a few 2nd layer middle men - not Bitcoin.

Speaking of fees, how many users would BSV need to have at BSV's current average fee to match the current fees miners get from BTC?  

And what makes you think that BSV would be the first choice for people who don't want to pay the fees on the BTC chain?  There are thousands of other coins.  The only remarkable thing about BSV is the fraudulent clown at the helm trying to convince everyone they're supposedly satoshi.  Not exactly a selling point.  Beyond that, it's another coin that's slightly above Dogecoin in terms of nodecount.  Why should anyone care?

And if by some miracle BSV does become popular and start filling blocks, it's going to be a few big companies running what few nodes remain.  You will destroy any shred of decentralisation.

If u d know how industry is selective at adoption process u will see that legal and compliance is top filter.

What is the real clean thing of Bitcoin that is specked up, defined by a 'legal' relvant term sheet for tech and financial documentation?

It is scalable in industrial way - even mentioned by Satoshi already.

We are stuck here with bottom up 'adoption' and scams that had lead to coins all full of scammers.

Go and distill what is the real essence of Bitcoin and let that go viral, uncrippled.

It is only about sending p2p cash, for fraction of a cent - stored on a public  blockchain - the world needs that new thing and the world is maximum decentralized, no need to be scared of 'central' control as we see from core and their way of dictatorship planning like in communism or kingdom.

Markets are free and lead to proper decentralization due to its sheer openess and fragility to any op risk that will break up any dominant corporation after some time ( see Bitmain actually).

Everything is well allined, relax at let the original Bitcoin do its work.

[btcusury]

Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.

I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.

On what possible basis?  BSV has ~650 nodes.  LN has ~6500 nodes.  It's pretty clear which one the market prefers.

Economic incentives , usability and security level will decide that.

Yeah, 2 GB blocks greatly improves security, usability, and incentives.

It is only about sending p2p cash, for fraction of a cent - stored on a public  blockchain - the world needs that new thing and the world is maximum decentralized, no need to be scared of 'central' control as we see from core and their way of dictatorship planning like in communism or kingdom.

Yeah, team Core is a communistic monarchy with King Gregory making all the decisions. Craigoshi Wrightomoto is leading a meritocracy that follows the only vision that he always intended.

[Lauda]

Yeah, 2 GB blocks greatly improves security, usability, and incentives.

It is only about sending p2p cash, for fraction of a cent - stored on a public  blockchain - the world needs that new thing and the world is maximum decentralized, no need to be scared of 'central' control as we see from core and their way of dictatorship planning like in communism or kingdom.

Yeah, team Core is a communistic monarchy with King Gregory making all the decisions. Craigoshi Wrightomoto is leading a meritocracy that follows the only vision that he always intended.

Quoting for reference. I truly hope this is sarcasm.

[JayJuanGee]

Yeah, 2 GB blocks greatly improves security, usability, and incentives.

It is only about sending p2p cash, for fraction of a cent - stored on a public  blockchain - the world needs that new thing and the world is maximum decentralized, no need to be scared of 'central' control as we see from core and their way of dictatorship planning like in communism or kingdom.

Yeah, team Core is a communistic monarchy with King Gregory making all the decisions. Craigoshi Wrightomoto is leading a meritocracy that follows the only vision that he always intended.

Quoting for reference. I truly hope this is sarcasm.

I merited the post because I thought that it was sarcasm, and I thought that no one could actually believe such dumb substance.. that is why I thought that it was so funny...   

But now, I question that perhaps I had read the post wrong? 

[DeathAngel]

Bitcoin Classic - Fucking hell, why are we still discussing that failure? I think best to lock this thread & let it sink.

[btcusury]

LOL of course it was sarcasm! 

They have gotten to a level of ridiculous where sarcasm is hard to distinguish from their genuine beliefs. 

[JayJuanGee]

LOL of course it was sarcasm! 

They have gotten to a level of ridiculous where sarcasm is hard to distinguish from their genuine beliefs. 

I do appreciate your clarification because I was beginning to doubt myself.

Also, I do appreciate that frequently some of the best jokes achieve their best results when they are made as if they were serious.   

[hv_]

Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.

I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.

On what possible basis?  BSV has ~650 nodes.  LN has ~6500 nodes.  It's pretty clear which one the market prefers.

Economic incentives , usability and security level will decide that.

Yeah, 2 GB blocks greatly improves security, usability, and incentives.

It is only about sending p2p cash, for fraction of a cent - stored on a public  blockchain - the world needs that new thing and the world is maximum decentralized, no need to be scared of 'central' control as we see from core and their way of dictatorship planning like in communism or kingdom.

Yeah, team Core is a communistic monarchy with King Gregory making all the decisions. Craigoshi Wrightomoto is leading a meritocracy that follows the only vision that he always intended.

Dont mind, or rather open ur mind and watch where open capitalism and open Bitcoin protocol  will move where some wannabe control freaks cannot follow any more

https://mobile.twitter.com/CoinstorageGuru/status/1103857941298339840

[gmaxwell]

How is this possible?  No Lightning without a malleability fix.  

Schnorr sigs are inherently non-malleable, or at least sigs using the schnorr implementation that Bitcoin Core devs designed (and Bitcoin Cash devs copy-pasted) are

They're claiming they will be able to do payment channels and lightning, but until they implement the rest of their segwit-under-another-name hash/txid split, they likely won't. Schnorr plus the aborted BIP62 implementation they copied from core aren't enough.

In other news, Toomin is apparently thrashing around trying to get a tiny percentage improvement in block propagation over BIP152 compact blocks (now ~2 year old tech). Such innovate.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/axza7b/id_love_to_get_an_update_on_what_is_happening/ehzhki0/?context=3

(turns out that without using minisketch they can't get within an order of magnitude of the known best case for almost pointless marginal optimizations... and it's kinda hard to make a case for how much better you are when all your examples are copying the people you're trying to say you're better than. )

[gmaxwell]

LOL of course it was sarcasm!  
They have gotten to a level of ridiculous where sarcasm is hard to distinguish from their genuine beliefs.  

I do appreciate your clarification because I was beginning to doubt myself.
Also, I do appreciate that frequently some of the best jokes achieve their best results when they are made as if they were serious.  

Poe's law man, poe's law.

The bamboozled are going to feel pretty cheated when they figure out that I'm just some nobody that got targeted because of my lifelong promotion of freedom and privacy technology. It's probably no accident that "hacking team" was sending out newsletter claiming that bitcoin could become an establishment threat if got improved privacy and then I become a number one target, complete with an over the top disinformation laden NYT hit piece, short after after I published a design and implementation of Confidential Transactions.  

[JayJuanGee]

LOL of course it was sarcasm!  
They have gotten to a level of ridiculous where sarcasm is hard to distinguish from their genuine beliefs.  

I do appreciate your clarification because I was beginning to doubt myself.
Also, I do appreciate that frequently some of the best jokes achieve their best results when they are made as if they were serious.  

Poe's law man, poe's law.

The bamboozled are going to feel pretty cheated when they figure out that I'm just some nobody that got targeted because of my lifelong promotion of freedom and privacy technology. It's probably no accident that "hacking team" was sending out newsletter claiming that bitcoin could become an establishment threat if got improved privacy and then I become a number one target, complete with an over the top disinformation laden NYT hit piece, short after after I published a design and implementation of Confidential Transactions.  

Several of the technical presentation aspects of bitcoin are so above my head that I can only superficially attempt to keep track of them - given my other life activities, so regarding some of your technical publications, I am not sure if above you are referring to the Xthinner link that you posted above or some other attributed writings from the dev mailinglist that I am aware of, namely Taproot and Graftroot.  Maybe those are not yours, but I thought that I heard some presentations that represented them to be recent publications of yours that were described and read by Max Hilibrant on the World Crypto Network.  

Hopefully, you don't let the targeting get to you because from what I understand you have been able to continue to give great contributions to bitcoin, and even in spite of your being extensively attacked for several years already.  You are fairly famous for being attacked, one of the reasons why satoshi disappeared, and maybe they think that you are satoshi?  

I will ask you this.   Have you ever seen satoshi and gmaxwell in the same room at the same time?

By the way, many people who have been around the block a few times already appreciate that effective people are going to be targeted more than non-effective people, so it is really good if coders are able to learn from you and your code, and my understanding that you are able to pick out loopholes and issues with code that others need to learn and contribute as many redundant parts of a decentralized and multi-faceted machine like you seem to suggest, and perhaps publishing under various other pseudonyms could be helpful too.  

Security through obscurity, and perhaps some positive aspects of all the shitcoins, whether supposed security coins or decentralized computing or other snake oils, is that they distract people into thinking that those various shit coins/projects are actually providing value - which seems to allow a decent amount of continued work, progress and adoption with bitcoin and lightning network which results in increasing network effects in terms of adoption (in the Trace Mayer framework of the 7 simultaneous network effects of bitcoin)..., and thank you to the many technical folks, of course including you gmaxwell (even though you want to downplay your "nobody" aspect) for those ongoing contributions whether publishing new pieces or merely just reviewing the proposed contributions of others (code, BIPs or otherwise).

[Lauda]

I merited the post because I thought that it was sarcasm, and I thought that no one could actually believe such dumb substance.. that is why I thought that it was so funny...   

I've seen plenty of fools claim similar stuff so it's hard to tell whether it is sarcasm or not if you don't know the poster.

LOL of course it was sarcasm! 

Good.

The bamboozled are going to feel pretty cheated when they figure out that I'm just some nobody that got targeted because of my lifelong promotion of freedom and privacy technology. It's probably no accident that "hacking team" was sending out newsletter claiming that bitcoin could become an establishment threat if got improved privacy and then I become a number one target, complete with an over the top disinformation laden NYT hit piece, short after after I published a design and implementation of Confidential Transactions. 

Just some nobody, heh.

[marcus_of_augustus]

  and so the beat goes on.

[btcusury]

LOL of course it was sarcasm!  
They have gotten to a level of ridiculous where sarcasm is hard to distinguish from their genuine beliefs.  

I do appreciate your clarification because I was beginning to doubt myself.
Also, I do appreciate that frequently some of the best jokes achieve their best results when they are made as if they were serious.  

Poe's law man, poe's law.

The bamboozled are going to feel pretty cheated when they figure out that I'm just some nobody that got targeted because of my lifelong promotion of freedom and privacy technology. It's probably no accident that "hacking team" was sending out newsletter claiming that bitcoin could become an establishment threat if got improved privacy and then I become a number one target, complete with an over the top disinformation laden NYT hit piece, short after after I published a design and implementation of Confidential Transactions.  

NYT=WaPo=CNN=MSNBC = CIA mockingbird gangs. When these attack you, you're being considered an enemy... XOR you're one of them, part of a controlled opposition program, being propped up with additional credibility by means of a hit piece.

[BitUsher]

Relevant due to J Toomin irrationally celebrating being 51% attacked and reorged below -


As expected, Due to BCHs lack of hashrate miners are double spending and reorging on BCH blockchain. Here is when it occurred last time-

https://twitter.com/TheCryptoconomy/status/1131962447823278080

‼️#BCH /#bcash was hit by 51% attack from just 2 miners, http://BTC.TOP  & http://BTC.com
- & no one seems to be talking about it. 🤨 Thread 👇🏻
1/  What I've gathered from loose details:First, there was an unintentional split with the recent #BCH "upgrade."

2/Since the original split in 2017, there has been a significant number of coins accidentally sent to "anyone can spend" addresses (due to tx compatibility of sigs, but no #SegWit on #BCH), or possibly they've been replayed from #Bitcoin onto the #BCH network.

3/Because of this, tons of coins (#BCH) would essentially be "up for grabs." However, devs implemented a protocol rule called CLEANSTACK, making P2SH coins unspendable.
This was to be removed with May 15 fork, basically handing the coins to miners. https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2019-05-15-upgrade.md

4/During the unintentional fork, someone exploited a bug (details are really hard to find) to add invalid TXs to @Bitcoin_ABC's client mempool. To counter, http://BTC.TOP  mined empty blocks (the bad TXs made blocks impossible to produce) coinspice.io/news/unknown-attacker-fails-to-disrupt-bch-upgrade

5/Due to low hash rate of the network, http://BTC.TOP  actually controlled over half (~54%) of #BCH hash power. Putting them in a position to essentially dictate which blocks were accepted by the network. (we'll see the problem here in a sec) https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/is-bitcoin-cash-under-a-51-percent-attack-as-one-bch-mining-pool-nears-over-half-control/

6/ In the confusion, an unknown miner (possibly the attacker, but unconfirmed) tried to snatch a bunch of P2SH/#Segwit coins.  But http://BTC.TOP  & http://BTC.COM  were expecting, and/or preparing to recover SegWit coins themselves...https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-4528

7/According to discussions, http://BTC.top  and http://BTC.com  were working with another party to recover #SegWit coins to rightful owners (exchanges and/or users).
How they sourced the rightful owners I'm not sure, but this appears to be "reddit consensus.

8/ When the unknown miner tried to take the coins themselves, http://BTC.TOP  & http://BTC.COM  saw & immediately decided to re-org & remove these TXs, in favor of their own TXs, spending the same P2SH coins, + many others.  https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-4528

9/It apparently took hours to figure out what happened as none of this was public yet. It appears the 2 miners were ready & communicating with each other directly & possibly another party (exchange or devs) for coordinating the re-org. Cant find specifics from involved parties.  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WMLRhXoAAzlEd.jpg

10/So just 2 miners, in secret & w/ no trouble, took it upon themselves to remove 2 blocks w/ another’s TXs, & replace with their own. Bizarrely, some are celebrating!
Some devs are quiet, but jtoomim (#BCH dev) called it “justice,” & “punishment” for “antisocial behavior.”  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM4hNXkAAfAsu.jpg
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM5NGW0AALecm.jpg

11/One dev seems to be actually discussing how dangerous of a precedent this was & has the only write-up that I can find so far on what exactly occurred. #BCH
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WNXlnW0AACJqw.jpg

12/This is what everyone warned about of endless HFs. Its an attack vector, kills Lindy effect, & has turned #BCH into a political mess where private comms control what does/doesn't get in a block. I can’t tell if no one cares, or if they just want to ignore it?

13/There are at least a few people (maybe only partially) realizing that this basically kills any perception that #BCH is "decentralized, censorship resistant money."  And leaves them to fight over whether the miners are "good guys" or "bad guys" with their actions. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WOrXcWkAE2EA3.jpg

14/Very curious to see others who could dig further (& more thoroughly) into this, as details are not easy to find, & there seem to no articles about the 51% as far as I can tell. 😁
/fin