ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 100.

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

But... But I was told non-mining nodes are essential to Bitcoin security and decentralizationings Huh

And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked? Shocked

Non-mining nodes are essential to security and decentralization. That doesn't mean that we have good (or complete) information about node counts. The former is a statement about how miners' selfish interests are balanced. The latter is just an acknowledgment that nodes can be Sybils -- that node count, particular over the short term, is not the most realistic measure of node proportions among incompatible softwares. One indication that a Sybil attack is occurring right now: comparing to overall node counts 1 month ago, when there were no Classic nodes, 65% of Classic nodes are "new", i.e. not Core nodes switching to Classic, which is contrary to the larger trend in node health. The picture is further obscured by that fact that pseudonode (NotXT) was released for Classic, so presumably people are also actively spoofing Classic nodes with the intention of later shutting them down.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: steeev on February 11, 2016, 05:29:46 PM

ha! they all come trooping out -ha!

Is it not obvious which are the paid shills and which are uneducated trolls? The picture should be pretty clear by now. Don't expect this to be over though, another controversial HF might be just around the corner!

Quote from: BitUsher on February 11, 2016, 05:24:37 PM

Why would you frame it this way ? You really are losing a lot of credibility.

He's a failed troll that I've put on ignore long ago because he fails to understand basic concepts no matter how many times you explain it to him. You would be better off spending your time doing something else.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Say Kool-Aid again,

steeev

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 103

ha! they all come trooping out -ha!

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Lauda on February 11, 2016, 05:11:42 PM

Quote from: knight22 on February 11, 2016, 05:08:15 PM

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

Nobody is "shit scared", nor is this thread about 2 MB blocks. Stop trying to divert the argument. ToominCoin is officially over. What's the next controversial power grab that you're going to support, Bitcoin Original maybe? It would not be bad to start copyrighting names and buying domains. Cheesy

this whole topic is a shit scared tactic by blockstream fanboys to turn the 2mb capacity increase into some political debate.

once you wash away the policical debate and concentrate on the desire and need of 2mb, and then debunk all the crap blockstreamers say that 2mb wont work.. you soon see through blockstreamers schemes. and realise 2mb is not a problem. but blockstreamers refuse to concede and do whats right. their agenda or death is their mentality

Why would you frame it this way ? If you are to ignore all the other differences in proposals the difference in capacity is 1.7-2MB for Core vs 2MB for classic.... In other words shouldn't you revise your statements to discuss other differences because we clearly are supporting segwit with 1.7-2 MB? You really are losing a lot of credibility.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: blunderer on February 11, 2016, 05:19:57 PM

Not sure what a Toomincoin is, but Classic is bangin'!

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers. That's some fine kool-aid that you've been drinking.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 11, 2016, 05:21:22 PM

Bitcoin's R3KT. Try some Moneros maybe?

No and no.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Bitcoin's R3KT. Try some Moneros maybe?

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on February 11, 2016, 05:11:42 PM

Quote from: knight22 on February 11, 2016, 05:08:15 PM

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

Nobody is "shit scared", nor is this thread about 2 MB blocks. Stop trying to divert the argument. ToominCoin is officially over. ...

Not sure what a Toomincoin is, but Classic is bangin'!

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: knight22 on February 11, 2016, 05:08:15 PM

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

Nobody is "shit scared", nor is this thread about 2 MB blocks. Stop trying to divert the argument. ToominCoin is officially over. What's the next controversial power grab that you're going to support, Bitcoin Original maybe? It would not be bad to start copyrighting names and buying domains. Cheesy

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Lauda on February 11, 2016, 05:05:28 PM

Quote from: knight22 on February 11, 2016, 05:03:17 PM

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

Irrelevant right now, they are part of the minority. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

It blows my mind how you people are so shit scared of a 2 mb block increase. It will happen, like it or not.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: knight22 on February 11, 2016, 05:03:17 PM

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

Irrelevant right now, they are part of the minority. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/697816867876921344

steeev

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 103

kudos to icebreaker, lauda and gmax for stamina and resolve in this and the other related threads amidst plenty o' spooks...

a wave goodbye to hearn, and stern face for gavin (aka yesterday's man), and garzik (duh, actually used to listen to that guy...)

and one more image, couldn't resist...

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: BitUsher on February 11, 2016, 04:46:57 AM

Well , I am glad this is over and we can move on to improving the bitcoin ecosystem?

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.3219xm7af

Thx for the link. That really is the end of it.

Quote

We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).

IOW, everybody (even the people in The Community^®) is sick of Gavin's shit. Cool

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 11, 2016, 10:20:38 AM

There is something positive we can deduce from this letter. This group of miners is clearly demanding that Core gives them a date for a hardfork blocksize increase within three weeks. I suspect that if Core fails to deliver this request/demand from the miners I suspect they will switch over to classic or just change the max blocksize parameter in their own custom node software themselves like they said they would.

There was a very good post by Dr Washington Sanchez regarding this letter, thought I would post it here since I suspect some people here at least will appreciate its sanity.

Quote from: Dr Washington Sanchez

The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.

I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB.

Bitcoin Core have had ample opportunity for over a year to schedule a hard fork to increase in the block size. It has taken a very real threat of a hard fork for them to signal progress on this front.

Segregated witness, while an awesome improvement to protocol, is not a long-term scaling solution. Moreover, it is a smokescreen for Bitcoin Core’s true intention to limit transaction capacity using the block size. This is euphemistically referred to as creating a ‘fee market’.

In reality, the use of the block size to retard the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, to increase fees, remains a value Bitcoin Core has not deviated from. Unless they explicitly abandon the idea of creating a fee market, Bitcoin Core will achieve a real hard fork in the economic properties of Bitcoin.

Furthermore, a token increase in the block size now by Bitcoin Core will only plague the community in the future, as they have no intention of keeping the block size comfortably above the market demand for on-chain transactions.

Feeling uneasy about your "economic majority" now are you?

Of course you'd post that piece of garbage from Dr. Wacko.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 11, 2016, 10:20:38 AM

There is something positive we can deduce from this letter. This group of miners is clearly demanding that Core gives them a date for a hardfork blocksize increase within three weeks. I suspect that if Core fails to deliver this request/demand from the miners

It does not say that. You're trying to save your precious 'forks' that are already dead.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 11, 2016, 10:20:38 AM

I suspect they will switch over to classic or just change the max blocksize parameter in their own custom node software themselves like they said they would.

Quote

Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).

Keep living in denial. Roll Eyes

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: bargainbin on February 11, 2016, 09:50:49 AM

^^Hand-waving?

Quote from: bargainbin on February 11, 2016, 09:21:11 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

https://coin.dance/nodes

those are bitcoin cores node running the current version, not the future one with seg wit

those node still need to decide if they want to be with core again or with classic or whatever they want

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

There is something positive we can deduce from this letter. This group of miners is clearly demanding that Core gives them a date for a hardfork blocksize increase within three weeks. I suspect that if Core fails to deliver this request/demand from the miners I suspect they will switch over to classic or just change the max blocksize parameter in their own custom node software themselves like they said they would.

There was a very good post by Dr Washington Sanchez regarding this letter, thought I would post it here since I suspect some people here at least will appreciate its sanity.

Quote from: Dr Washington Sanchez

The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.

I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB.

Bitcoin Core have had ample opportunity for over a year to schedule a hard fork to increase in the block size. It has taken a very real threat of a hard fork for them to signal progress on this front.

Segregated witness, while an awesome improvement to protocol, is not a long-term scaling solution. Moreover, it is a smokescreen for Bitcoin Core’s true intention to limit transaction capacity using the block size. This is euphemistically referred to as creating a ‘fee market’.

In reality, the use of the block size to retard the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, to increase fees, remains a value Bitcoin Core has not deviated from. Unless they explicitly abandon the idea of creating a fee market, Bitcoin Core will achieve a real hard fork in the economic properties of Bitcoin.

Furthermore, a token increase in the block size now by Bitcoin Core will only plague the community in the future, as they have no intention of keeping the block size comfortably above the market demand for on-chain transactions.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: bargainbin on February 11, 2016, 10:09:41 AM

But... But I was told non-mining nodes are essential to Bitcoin security and decentralizationings Huh

And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked? Shocked

Everything is important, albeit without the miners you can't do anything either. The number of nodes was never a good metric as there isn't a good way to count all of them. In addition to this it is easy to set up a lot of fake nodes, ergo inaccurate metric. Keep drinking the kool-aid and trying to troll.

Sir Lagsalot

sr. member

Activity: 323

Merit: 250

The lion roars!

Quote from: hdbuck on February 11, 2016, 09:36:55 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 11, 2016, 09:28:03 AM

Quote from: USB-S on February 11, 2016, 09:17:08 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 11, 2016, 08:55:31 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 11, 2016, 08:23:25 AM

We are no longer being ignored or scoffed at , but actively attacked and we must recognize and not underestimate our enemies.

Seems like Gavin has joined the dark side.

What makes you say so?

Still unknown and we shouldn't unjustly insinuate, but the fact that he worked with and partnered with Hearn and the fact that he was trying to push through a contentious HF with such a low threshold which is very dangerous should make people concerned and slightly suspicious.

Hopefully in time he can redeem himself to the community, and admit he made some mistakes.

More like he is a statist piece of shiet.

CIA meeting, MIT (eg USG) payroll, pushing contentious hardfork using (NSA) social media engineering tactics, and also he has been on the town council thing of Amherst mass for years. He is literally a politician. A big polished TURD.

Gavin also went before the CFR, that gang of war criminals and wannabe world-rulers, to tell them all about Bitcoin. Shady behaviour.

Ah well, seems everything is working out for the best despite Gavhearn et al... Hey, Peter Rizun, whatever happened to your smug "I eat small blockers for breakfast" personal text? I always liked that, reminded me of this Happy Gilmore scene.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on February 11, 2016, 10:01:41 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 11, 2016, 09:56:15 AM

Expected Sybil attack, I expect those nodes to grow higher while mined classic block to be below 5% at most.

How to run 3,000 completely legit full nodes aka don't trust the node numbers. As always, the node count only matters to the 'forkers' when it starts growing in their favor.

But... But I was told non-mining nodes are essential to Bitcoin security and decentralizationings Huh

And I when I told you that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked, you got upset...
And now ...you're telling me that non-mining nodes are irrelevant, because trivially faked? Shocked

Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 100. (Read 157162 times)