Topic: "Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 10. (Read 8104 times)

With the completely manufactured and unnecessary chaos caused by Classic and Gavin you will be lucky if we get above $400.

Bitcoin has plenty of "capacity" and Segwit will ensure it will have plenty more. Opt-in RBF will be like y2k i.e. nothing will happen.


All this is FUD to scare people to support the takeover attempt.

Whats worse is the takeover attempt is backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance. They want pro-regulation developers not cypherpunks in charge of the reference client.

A pro-regulation Bitcoin will be one of watered down potential and value. Paypal 2.0.

For the most part users are already not important, and are reduced to whining on forums and reddit trying to convince those that do have power i.e. a handfull of exchanges, wallets and miners.

Thats why having decentralisation and small nodes is important. Gavin, Hearn, Coinbase and blockchain alliance would make this worse.

In other words there is no harm in raising the maximum block size to 2MB (other then it would destroy blockstream's business model)

If you were here to converse in good faith, you would have already researched that exhaustively-debated topic.

I admire your 'energy vampire' attempt to wear us down by repeatedly asking already answered questions and attempting to restart the conversation back at square one.

I don't think you are actually a Toominista; you smell more like a Buttcoiner here to troll.   

"Quality of adoption" lol.

Miners are already free to include/exlcude whatever they want.

And a fee market exists without a blocksize cap.

Peter Rizun wrote a whitepaper proving it.
If you know any academic papers offering
a rebuttal, please link it.

Aren't these just flushed out of the mempool?

No. Because of how the Visa network is setup merchants would receive significantly less of each transaction to the point that the majority of merchants will no longer accept Visa. After the majority of merchants stop accepting Visa, consumers will have less of a reason to use a Visa branded card, so banks will stop issuing them. This would mean that the overall usage of Visa will decline significantly, as will the Revenue of Visa.

Those that are still accepting/using Visa will need to wait hours/days for their transaction to be processed and most of the time the merchant and customer will likely agree on another payment method while the transaction is still processing.

I cannot think of any logical reason why someone who wishes for Bitcoin to be successful would not want to allow more transactions to be processed via the Bitcoin network.

RBF is crucial to recover funds stuck in tx with insufficient (ie uncompetitive) original fees.  It's needed for fee markets to mature and Because other Reasons, which you would have already looked up if you weren't just here to troll and FUD.

RBF is a soft fork, so there's nothing you Tooministas and Blockstream haters can do to stop it.

When you cry for your hopeless lost fantasy of 0-conf tx, it gives me great pleasure.

Do I need to post the nipple rubbing cable company guys again, or have you got the message?   

Then it's also premature for Tooministas to declare victory over Core.

But they have been doing exactly that.

Did you likewise scold the TumorBlockers, or are your criticisms reserved for the small block militia?

What's the harm in a jump to 2MB??

The idea of Gavin whining about "toxic" people is a howler, given his palling around with Mike "Yellow Peril" Hearn and their instigation of an ugly Grand Schism.

Luke-Jr (among other exemplary contributions) just gave us a slick soft-fork SegWit implementation that kills 10 birds with one stone, and obviates the need for a lousy, perfunctory jump to 2MB blocks.

What has Gavin done for us lately?  Besides hanging out in smoke-filled rooms in an attempt to subvert Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties.

Luke-Jr >> Gavin

To be fair, if Visa just throttled its throughput to 3tps, people would be forced to pay a hell of a lot more per tx, all the spam Visa transactions would disappear in the Free Market, and Visa would become the new gold standard.

If only 3 people can send a transaction per second, then how do you expect 50 people to send a transaction every second (this is roughly 2.5% of what Visa does)?

The current 1MB limit makes it so roughly only 3 people can send a transaction every second (it has a limit of 3 ~tps depending on what assumptions you make regarding average transaction size)

According to our research, that's exactly what minors crave. That, and bitcoins.  And also older men. Minors go totally gaga for older men.  And once they find out you got bitcoins, wehehehehell...

people(general users) dont want 4cent tx fee's, they want 2cent tx fees(or less). they definitely wont accept 8cent fee's

at 4cent, 1mb blocks get $160(1mb=4000tx=$160 at 4cent each)

miners dont want $80(1mb=4000tx at 2cent=$80) they want $160(or more)

so miners have a choice..
stick to 1mb and take a cut to please customers.. ($80).. without being greedy!
or increase to 2mb and please customers aswell with lower fee's... yet keeping their stash of $160(2mb=8000tx=$160 at 2cent each)
or if greedy.. 2mb and 4cent fee at max = $320 fee total potential(greedy but acceptable)

but sticking to 1mb and jumping to 8cents a tx is totally going to ruin bitcoins usefulness. while revealing greed as the killer of all the positives of what made bitcoin better than fiat in the first place

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

For minors is not important the number of people and entities that pay tx fees but the overall tx fees paid! Of course, the size of the adoption is important but even more important is the quality of the adoption. Increasing block size and giving free block space to even more spam will not help bitcoin adoption for sure!

Excellent post, we need more like this, no such as enough threads like this, we much teach the noobs how to spot bullshit like XT and Classic. Can't believe so much people are drinking the koolaid. "Yeah lets centralize nodes just to pay a bit less fees". Fucking ridiculous.

If some of the biggest pools and companies and developers like Gavin and Garzik is a "small bunch" , ok...
But I don't see it as FUD.  It's an option for those who are not happy with core's scalability roadmap.



Blocks are getting fuller all the time.  I know.  I've checked the charts.


Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.
If you don't think Bitcoin should be a widely adopted CURRENCY well, that's your
opinion and one I don't share.

and blockstreams segwit isnt a hostile take over.?? by suggesting it wont send sigs to other clients, and only to segwit "archival" clients that ask for it using a special parameter will get it....

so
if blockstream instead didnt mess with the relay data for anyone by default. and then had a special option to truncate data for special nodes that request it (the reverse of the proposals so far).. then things would be better and segwit wont be a hostile takeover..

but calling bitcoin classic or BU or any implementation wanting to up the block potential to 2mb a hostile takeover.. is narrow minded as the users will still accept 1mb blocks.. and blocks over 1mb will only be mined once there is a high percentage of users capable of handling upto 2mb blocks..

which if 50% went with 2mb and 50% went with segwit1mb.. everyone will still relay data.. and even segwit can benefit if it defaults data to send witnesses to all nodes unless requested not to specially.. because then it can send out the 1.5mb of real data of 6000tx while also sending out 1mb of nonwitness 6000tx data to its special lite nodes..
win win.

but..
by simply not letting other implementations have 2mb max.. means that if segwit had 6000tx nonwitness blocks(1mb) and by default would send out witness(1.5mb) to other implementations.. then by not having a 2mb rule, the implementations would reject the 1.5mb as its bigger than 1mb..
screwing all other implementations out of not able to receive data to check signatures. but also rejecting blocks.. that had signatures..
lose lose

segwit on the other hands has previously proposed cutting off other non segwit clients.. on day one.. due to its 'dont send witness' default.

so as i said near the start.. let any/all implimentations have 2mb.. and then segwit1mb (1.5mb archival (with sig)) can play happily alongside other implementations.

and then its a patient wait for a consensus of atleast 90% before miners start pushing out blocks above 1mb.. not immediate and not definite as it needs consensus

Yeah I have to agree with that. Even if classic is the right solution to the problem, the ends do not justify the means and the means being used are not something I can condone.