What if classic coup is just a large-scale manipulation by altcoin pumper gang?

[Joshua kingpin]

You are in matrix, dude! 

[1715600993]

1715600993

[1715600993]

1715600993

[chopstick]

The evidence suggests Classic is a collaboration between scammers (Marshall), altcoin Pump & Dump teams (ETH spammers), second-rate devs (Hearn, Andresen & Garzik), aspiring politicans (Olivier) and short-sighted business interests (Brian). This inner group is supported by a veritable botnet of shills and gullible idiots.

The evidence suggests Core is a collaboration between scammers (Austin Hill, who scammed 100k out of canadians), Central-Banker linked investors(HSBC), second-rate devs (Luke-jr, all the no-names on core), aspiring politicians (Adam Back), and short-sighted business interests (The $75-million funded VC corp blockstream who want to profit off sidechains). This inner group is supported by a network of censorship, DDoS-er botnets and veritable morons.

See what I did there?

Stop running around being a hypocrite, it's just bad form.

[Bitcoinpro]

You are in matrix, dude! 

the Matrix is just the name for one Cloud

[franky1]

I didn't notice you using statistics, logic or real data to attack Lightning,

really??
i have never used statistics

using blockstreams doomsday story of comparing bitcoin to possible Visa..(dont worry i hate it too, but relax, think of it from the end-user usage not the who controls it mindset)

visa averages each customer does 40 transactions a year.

bitcoin currently has 2.5mill users and based on the maths of ACTUAL average transactions per block(2000tx=500byte/tx)
2000tx(block)*144(day)*365(year)=105mill .. which not surprisingly also corresponds to a 40tx/user per year.. (kinda funny that)

after all not everyone will use it daily. some use it a couple times a day some use it once a month. hense the 40tx/year is a good average as proven by both bitcoin and visa

so 20million people doing 40 transactions/year to compare both visa and bitcoins current usage =  
8mb maxblocksize hard rule doing traditional transactions.
4.2mb maxblocksize hard rule doing Segwit transactions with a real data storage of 8mb (based on segwit and laudas assumption of 190% capacity)
4.2mb maxblocksize hard rule doing Segwit transactions and confidential payment codes with a real data storage of 12mb

so we went from 1000 tx in 2013(0.5mb block due to DB bug) its going to be 2mb+segwit in 2017(hoping to be sooner personally). and based on technology growth. a 4.2mb +segwit wont be a big deal by 2020

in short by summer 2017 bitcoin can handle 10million people doing similar transactions like they would using bitcoin or visa today
give it 4 years there wont be an issue with 20million. (ONLY if people dont stupidly use confidential payment codes extra feature by default)

never used logic?

bitcoin can work on a raspberry Pi.. meaning even a 2005 (11 year old) computer is atleast 2 times more powerful. and so a 5 year old computer or a 6 month old computer can handle alot more.

how about the basic logic that blockstream want the imaginary 900million people to stay on just a dozen insecure central hubs, yet spout out how its better than just using visa or more secure then bitcoin.

how about the logic that there wont be 900million users in the next few years.

how about the logic that people can livestream their gaming, while also in group chat while also playing said online game. all of which is high upload bandwidth.

how about the logic of a traditional bitcoin transaction vs a segwit confidential payment transaction.. real byte for byte.


oh and by the way the math to work that out was from you blockstreamers. so it made me laugh when it actually does against everything you say.

EG 2mb maxblocksize = upto 4000 transactions for 2mb data storage.
1mb maxblocksize PLUS segwit and confidential payment codes = upto 3800 transactions for 2.85mb data storage.

so if segwit and confidential payment codes are not a network bandwidth or hard drive store, or node distribution problem. then 2mb maxblocksize isnt either.

[Carlton Banks]

I didn't notice you using statistics, logic or real data to attack Lightning,

really??
i have never used statistics

using blockstreams doomsday story of comparing bitcoin to possible Visa..(dont worry i hate it too, but relax, think of it from the end-user usage not the who controls it mindset)

visa averages each customer does 40 transactions a year.

bitcoin currently has 2.5mill users and based on the maths of ACTUAL average transactions per block(2000tx=500byte/tx)
2000tx(block)*144(day)*365(year)=105mill .. which not surprisingly also corresponds to a 40tx/user per year.. (kinda funny that)


[...]

Well, that just about qualifies as statistics, where are you getting these numbers from though? You expect people to actually take statements like "bitcoin currently has 2.5mill users" at your word? Remember, this is your word we're talking about here

never used logic?

bitcoin can work on a raspberry Pi.. meaning even a 2005 (11 year old) computer is atleast 2 times more powerful. and so a 5 year old computer or a 6 month old computer can handle alot more.

how about the basic logic that blockstream want the imaginary 900million people to stay on just a dozen insecure central hubs, yet spout out how its better than just using visa or more secure then bitcoin.

how about the logic that there wont be 900million users in the next few years.

how about the logic that people can livestream their gaming, while also in group chat while also playing said online game. all of which is high upload bandwidth.

how about the logic of a traditional bitcoin transaction vs a segwit confidential payment transaction.. real byte for byte.


oh and by the way the math to work that out was from you blockstreamers. so it made me laugh when it actually does against everything you say.

EG 2mb maxblocksize = upto 4000 transactions for 2mb data storage.
1mb maxblocksize PLUS segwit and confidential payment codes = upto 3800 transactions for 2.85mb data storage.

so if segwit and confidential payment codes are not a network bandwidth or hard drive store, or node distribution problem. then 2mb maxblocksize isnt either.

Right, so as usual, all the developers are wrong and your working is correct (let's be honest, why would anyone bother to check your working?). Why aren't you and your ideas about Bitcoin being taken seriously, Franky?

[rizzlarolla]

Classic probably is a coup and a large-scale manipulation by altcoin pumper gang.
Just like Core.

Now anyone asking for a small blocksize increase (up to 2mb?) is "labelled" a Classic supporter. (Even though core also plan to increase the blocksize)

I want 2mb, Classic want 2mb. (then loads more mb) I don't want Classic's roadmap
I want 2mb, Core want 2mb. (after segwit) I don't want Core's roadmap.

I don't want Core roadmap or Classic roadmap.
I just want 2mb, nothing else. To ease the pressure. Not all the extra crap that comes with that from either side. See how that goes. All parties plan 2mb.

(Look at  VeritasSapere arguement on Icebreakers thread. Poor sod. I support most of his thinking, i think)

I don't trust Core. I don't trust Classic.
At least franky told me not to trust him blindly, Good luck Franky.

[Carlton Banks]

Lol, you people actually believe that if you type "2MB" enough times, everyone will be somehow hypnotised by the repetition.



1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB1MB

1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB

1MB1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB1MB
1MB

1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB

1MB
1MB
1MB

1MB
1MB1MB

1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
1MB
v
1MB1MB
1MB
1MB

1MB

1MB
1MB
1MB1MB
1MB







Hey! It works guys, Franky and all the 2MB repeaters are unrecognised geniuses!

Just don't anyone else undo what I just did, if everyone could choose how Bitcoin gets developed, it might get a bit messy.....

[QuestionAuthority]

What if Bitcoin isn't real?  What if bitcoin is just a random collection of characters and symbols that people send around to each other with no intrinsic value whatsoever?  What if bitcoin is an invention of scammers that use it to get people to give up their financial information to on-line businesses on the other side of the world that are really just script kiddies or Texas rednecks hiding in their parents basement? What if........

[Yakamoto]

I don't personally have any strong opinions on whether Bitcoin should move to 2MB blocks or stay with 1MB blocks, but I have to say it is absolutely hilarious watching the arguments on this forum.

Classic could potentially be a coup, but considering the arguments between people on this forum, I would doubt it is just merely a coup.

[rizzlarolla]

Oh "if everyone could choose how Bitcoin gets developed, it might get a bit messy....."

Can only you choose? (and you chose core, supporting everything they want to do, while hating everything anyone else might want to do, even though some things are the same)

I forgot to say here, I only want to see 2mb "when" segwit is abandoned/delayed.
(as core have built up an expectation of an effective increase through segwit to deal with the increasing fullness of blocks)

[franky1]

Right, so as usual, all the developers are wrong and your working is correct (let's be honest, why would anyone bother to check your working?). Why aren't you and your ideas about Bitcoin being taken seriously, Franky?

and ur lack of stats, logic and unbiased thought process doesnt surprise me again.

maybe when you get out of your snake pit and actually explore, you will see the numbers are not mine..
so its never been about me being taken seriously. its just me being frank about the real situation and not glossing it over just to stay happy with your friends. the real funny thing is i grabbed the numbers from posts your best friend lauda mentioned or linked. so if you want to debunk the number you better talk to ur friend first

maybe its time you stop insulting everyone thats not a blockstreamer and started researching. because blindly following lauda wont help you..
by the way only a month ago lauda thought bitcoin was wrote in java...
good luck following him.

so please show some maturity. have a cup of coffee spend some time to think before you speak and try to make a valid rebuttle using logic data and stats for why blockstream should be a supreme ruler.

if i see one insult or just a meandering post where you try to avoid showing valid real data that doesnt sound like a script out of the lauda salespitch manual. then you have failed.

so please use proper reasoning why blockstream should be the supreme ruler. and centralize the control of the bitcoin code. or you can happily go back to the 52page toomin topic and entertain yourselves with ur friends oblivious to the world

[Carlton Banks]

Right, so as usual, all the developers are wrong and your working is correct (let's be honest, why would anyone bother to check your working?). Why aren't you and your ideas about Bitcoin being taken seriously, Franky?

and ur lack of stats, logic and unbiased thought process doesnt surprise me again.

Franky, you barely satisfy your own criteria there: what logic? You've clearly never attempted your so-called logical deposition that the Bitcoin software runs on a 2005 Raspberry Pi (I have, it works. Nearly.) So, again, why would I bother to waste my time checking your sources and figures? Please.

[thejaytiesto]

Anything is possible at this point, I have seen so much bullshit that this sounds like a decent theory. I can't believe in /r/btc they are encouraging each other to run fake nodes under cloud services and whatnot.. this is definitely getting out of hand for the Gavinistas.

[gmaxwell]

seems no one is denying blockstreams has ties to banks

Huh? I do. What ties to what banks are you talking about?

seems no one denies that blockstream prefer people not to use real secure bitcoin ledger transactions and instead want people using less distributed less secure LN hubs.

I do. What is a "LN hub"?  If you're talking about lightning, every lightning transaction is a "real bitcoin ledger transaction" just most are hopefully superseded before they hit the blockchain, without degrading their security. If this seems impossible to you should checkout cut-through transactions as a parallel technology that might open your eyes.

In my vision of lightning there isn't much in the way of hubs, but a mesh of users. If I wanted to build a hub I'd build a chaumanian cash bank. Payment channels were originally proposed by Bitcoin's creator, and the Bitcoin transaction format has specific affordances to support them (e.g. sequence numbers).

[franky1]

Franky, you barely satisfy your own criteria there: what logic? You've clearly never attempted your so-called logical deposition that the Bitcoin software runs on a 2005 Raspberry Pi (I have, it works. Nearly.) So, again, why would I bother to waste my time checking your sources and figures? Please.

logic!
Raspberry pi's were not even around in 2005.
i said a rapberry Pi is half the speed of a regular computer of 2005.. (regular computer being twice the power of a raspberry pi)
thus a 2016 computer is even more powerful again.

but hey if you have a 2005 raspberry Pi. then you must break the laws of physics which obviously proves you dont follow the rules of logic
you talk alot to your best friend lauda. so go ask him about the % capacity segwit offers and the extra bytes confidential payment codes adds to a transaction.
because i used his mythical numbers for the procise point that you blindly would ridicule the numbers.. meaning your ridiculing your own pal.


but no, you wont talk about stats or real data..  all you wanna do is insult people without bothering to check facts. as proven by your own words

[johnyj]

Lightning Network is the old idea of per-paid card/payment channel, giving it a new name does not give it new life

Micro transaction model (charge by minute/byte) has mostly been abandoned by large telecom operators world wide due to the R&D resource spent on those tiny transactions does not worth the effort, they fired engineers doing micro transaction models and use fixed charge regardless usage model in the end. By doing this they dramatically reduced the amount of accounting on their network and saved lots of money

The only one benefiting from payment channel are large institutions, but since those institutions are very large and have enough resource, they would rather setup their own clearing channel instead of relying on a third party solution

[gmaxwell]

giving it a new name does not give it new life

It isn't just a new name, the channels are bidirectional; which radically improves their utility.

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, you barely satisfy your own criteria there: what logic? You've clearly never attempted your so-called logical deposition that the Bitcoin software runs on a 2005 Raspberry Pi (I have, it works. Nearly.) So, again, why would I bother to waste my time checking your sources and figures? Please.

logic!
Raspberry pi's were not even around in 2005.
i said a rapberry Pi is half the speed of a regular computer of 2005.. (regular computer being twice the power of a raspberry pi)
thus a 2016 computer is even more powerful again.

but hey if you have a 2005 raspberry Pi. then you must break the laws of physics which obviously proves you dont follow the rules of logic
you talk alot to your best friend lauda. so go ask him about the % capacity segwit offers and the extra bytes confidential payment codes adds to a transaction.
because i used his mythical numbers for the procise point that you blindly would ridicule the numbers.. meaning your ridiculing your own pal.


but no, you wont talk about stats or real data..  all you wanna do is insult people without bothering to check facts. as proven by your own words

Ok. Are you making a point? What is it? Does anyone care?

[franky1]

giving it a new name does not give it new life

It isn't just a new name, the channels are bidirectional; which radically improves their utility.

bi-directional.. within??
 a small group.. AKA a hub(u call it channel)

the blockchain ledger transactions are not bi-directional.

only the transactions WITHIN the HUB (channel)

if you were in the fashion industry you would flatly refuse that BellBottom jeans are anything like the 1970's Flares.
yet people who use them will see that the jeans are loose and shimmy at the bottom the same way

different names does not mean you can pretend its not a smaller less secure network.

EG. if closing the channel to combine and sort out the micro transactions is as risk free as a real bitcoin ONCHAIN transaction.. then there would be no need for peta hashes of miners because hubs(channels) are just as good at collating and administering peoples transactions.

atleast admit that LN is less secure and people should make an informed CHOICE to do real bitcoin transactions for security or LN for utility/speed. and dont blindly tell people to trust LN for every transaction

[Carlton Banks]

Franky1: the only supposedly adult human that believes he can make a false statement increasingly truer by dint of simply repeating it again and again and again. The liar's classic.