Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 104. (Read 157162 times)

Sorry folks, I'm in the dark here. Who exactly made this proposal?

Too much battle about the blocksizes... but bitcoin keeps on working good... perhaps we should relax a bit with all this.

Can you explain what you mean by boldface, and offer an example? Or simply a link, if you've been over it many times.
ty

It's important to speak specifically about what this proposal was.

What they wanted to do was use payments of zero bitcoins to track non-bitcoin related assets by storing their data in the Bitcoin network. No Bitcoins would have been involved in this project, likely not even for fees: bypassing the network anti-spam rules would have required a relationship directly with a miner-- and then they could have been paid directly in fiat (saving them exchange fees).

No remotely sane amount of block size would have reasonably satisfied this application in any case (you'll note that this kind of ask never comes with the requirement spelled out: the business requirement is almost always, "as large as we need"-- something which is fundamentally impossible in a decenteralized network like this).

I think those of us who actually own Bitcoins should be looking at this, with a sigh of relief and not concern-- a situation where the system's costs were increased tens to hundreds fold by someone not using the Bitcoin currency would be potentially devastating to the systems' decentralization. If it means anything at all to us, that project should be considered a great example of why a blocksize limit is important and protective even over miner imposed soft-thresholds.

Yes, they are.. which means they're available to be used in the future when a need arises. The transactions that are CLTV or P2SH spends used to be non-standard, and now they're frequently used. Prohibiting larger transactions would be a really unfortunate reduction in capability.  Some people don't think so, because they believe that Bitcoin is centrally administered and that all users can be forced to upgrade in less than a month should the administration decide to undo that decision.

-Aren't > 100kb transactions already non-standard?
-Why yes they are, blunderer! You're so smart!

Gavin and company can discuss what they want in their roundtable but they need to understand that without a consensus these proposals cannot be deployed. Another thing they need to understand I hate the branding since discovering Classic was chosen based on the who controls Bitcoin.

I'm working hard on the shill faucet , it will work like a normal faucet but instead of solving captcha the user reviews forum posts, and marks those posted by social media shills.

Prototype:



I believe in a long term this could be useful to Bitcoiners , we can't rely on Theymos forever

Core is using segwit to fix the source of extralinear sig_op validation times.  And we get the amazing power of tree sigs enabled as a bonus.

Classic is using a magic number from Gavin's ass to artificially limit tx size to 100k or something, which he already admitted is a horrible, hacky, future-unfriendly approach.

And the solution to the quadratic slow transaction?


Everyone wants to be the boss who saves the day by increasing the blocksize but hard problems still unsolved.

I'm not saying Gavin's latest plan is a horrorshow but

Grand Master Szabo hitting Count Gavin with Force lightning....

this is nothing.

>be speculator
>during fork, sell 1MB Bitcoin
>invest millions of $ to 2MB Bitcoins
>All miners hop back to 1MB chain after realizing what kind of grave mistake they just did
>Try to move Classic Bitcoins
>0 confirmations
>Classic Bitcoins frozen forever

>Be a miner, making money due to almost free electricity.
>Gamble it all away on a power move by supporting a team that makes decisions based on popularity contests.
>Believe Gavin and Jeff when they say it'll work.
>Activate Order66, start mining new Big Blocks.
>Start mining bigger blocks, but they are getting orphaned wtf.mp4
>Spend thousands a day for invalid blocks
>Your face goes pale as you notice that 4 weeks wasn't enough for the entire Full Node ecosystem to upgrade so they are simply rejecting your blocks.
>Go crawling back to twitter and claim you supported Core all along and you hate big blocks.
>You piss yourself as LukeJr's proposal of a PoW change is now a priority due to the miner mutiny.

>Your face when you just lost millions by supporting ToominCoin

K, I'll be gentler & reword.

Chin up, Buttercup!

It keeps happening and haters gonna hate.

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it there so that it is easy to read and find. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

Right, I going to try with you again also (god knows why): that kind of language is never appropriate with me, I should imagine others find it similarly unpalatable. Stop. And you got something else wrong, my Samsung phone is brand new. As you were.

It is obvious that the disaster from overfilled blocks isn't true, and there is still enough capacity to process txs cheaply. The data is clear and undeniable regardless of how often the misleading statement that "blocks are full" is repeated.

Let me defend Gavin and Jeff for a moment to empathize and understand a big blockers mentality:

What they are concerned about is stunting potential growth in volume, especially in anticipation of a new bubble which is likely to happen this year, which will prompt many new users to adopt bitcoin. Another concern for them is the "Fidelity Problem" where certain institutions and business models simply won't directly use bitcoin because it cannot handle the volume that is required. In their mind they would rather have an average of 5-10% full blocks to insure that in moments of spiked usage there is no backlog of tx's or fee market created.

These are valid concerns , but ones which are focused on short term growth at the expense of long term scalability in a secure and decentralized matter. The mentality that assumes that we can simply keep increasing the maxBlockSize to solve the problems and that pymt processors with their inadequate mempool security algos for 0 conf is the way forward really aren't understanding the big picture and limitations of the technology.

If Coinbase/Bitpay don't get on-board and quickly start to expedite the development of payment channels (whether Impiulse , LN , or others) they are going to be in a world of pain because Peter Todd is soliciting interest for someone to create a nice GUI for his double spend scripts. The fact that Classic supporters don't see this as a problem and believe that ignoring the implementation of payment channels (Segwit fixing Malleability is crucial to progress in this arena) is fine by delaying segwit in favor of a 2MB HF is dangerously irresponsible and ironically places their supporting payment processors in jeopardy of losing everything. If they want to keep spouting off nonsense about LN and conspiracy theories , than fine ... please fork LN or further develop Impulse (bitpay) right away because it isn't RBF that is at fault but in trusting 0conf in general without secured payment channels.

Your old Samsung cut off the text? Again? Oh well, another try: