Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 106. (Read 157137 times)

Classic to the moon!

2MB soon

Heh, his stubbornness to contentiously hardfork bitcoin and break the consensus rule is almost like if the CIA threatened his life directly or something.
Can't possibly be that stupid. Or could it be?!  

lol the headshot gone mugshot

Think people would have learned by now ... every time you see Gavin's smiling face on reddit r/bitcoin front page the price tanks precipitously.



... and down we go.

"All the poor camel wants is to put its nose in the tent, to allow a buffer from sandstorms."

I've already demolished your quasi-neutral thin wedge rubbish.

Bitcoin is not a democracy.

And most of the people who matter support SW now, then 2MB eventually.

And that is the charitable interpretation of Hanlon's Razor.

It is also possible Classic devs actually do grok Bitcoin's fundamentally reactionary and intrinsically anti-democratic nature, but are intentionally attacking it with demagoguery, via populist appeals to the Free Shit Army, on behalf of [email protected]'s R3 puppet masters and [email protected]'s spooky VC backers.

im not a fan of any dicatatorship.. not by toomin/gavin/heard or by core..

all most of the community want is a 2mb block limit to allow a buffer for growth. but your trolling to attempt to claim anyone who just wants a increase, as being a toomin, R3, gavoncoin/hearn fanboy.. is YOUR failing and narrow mindset. rather than debate the the code your just a social drama queen..

i hope you enjoy your liquid coins you promised, as they must be paying you well to troll this hard to detract people from talking about 2mb blocks, without being attacked.

Consider.it isn't a democracy system on Bitcoin, it can't be.
To be a democracy, users must be forced to install Classic or a next version of Classic, by a law, by force.

Users aren't forced to do it, as they aren't forced to install Bitcoin Core.

Users are free to choose to install Classic, hard fork the network, and then even going back to Bitcoin Core and fork the network again!

Consider.it is a market research that devs will be able to use to understand "the demand", and then making choices on how serve it.

They will not follow blindly any request, and when ever they will do something bad, against the will of the users, the simpler solution is just not installing it and using another client (even again forking the network if needed)

The consensus happen on Bitcoin every 10 minutes, so every users/exchange/miner/payment processor/wallet is voting on the network every 10 minutes, and not on Consider.it.

At the worst case scenario of full of idiocy, you can just sell all your coins and move to another better/safer coin.

Franky lives in Imaginationland, because when he tries to participate in gritty harsh reality (with its confusing annual jokes, interpersonal friction, and nasty factionalism) he quickly gets #rekt.

EG, one minute Franky is whining about "negative social drama."  And the next minute he's spreading functionally malicious, objectively false gossip about "not so innocent" P Wuille.

It's all just one big concern troll.  Franky's sniveling process objections are written to be ostensibly even-handed ("zomg both sides are doing it pleeze stawp your're Hurting Bitcoin^TM!!!!  ") but he invariable declares/implies/assumes moral equivalence between Bitcoin's 1MB defenders and its Toominista attackers.

By "professional way" you mean slapfight, ragequit, and make sure nothing ever gets done, right?
In that case +1!

+1

Yep democracy is unacceptable with bitcoin, you cannot let layman people vote on things they cant comprehend.

Even I give up my voting right, because I`m honest enough to admit that I`m not tech savy enough to vote on bitcoin, and so should other people.


Where is the humility people, guys you have to admit that you are not omniscient and leave the tech part to specialists!!

... just build it from source yourself you unstoppable whiner. I have a script that does exactly that (including many dependencies built locally from a hashed-checked source tree if you like?

so many entitled demands and whinges and suggestions but so little action. Take care of yourself.

well having 1 download location opens up the chance of someone replacing the compiled version with dodgy code. even with  torrents where the ultimate code originates at one seed. so i was thinking more like:

all the core devs have the compiled core v0.132mb and core v013sw..
so there are 100 copies of the exact same 2 compiles at different locations. along with duplicated sourse code for people to review and self compile.
all with viewable file hashes to compare if there are any changes of the compile.

that way if the download at bitcoin.org becomes corrupt, people can download it at 99 other locations. where the file hashes match and so know its the same.

it also shows that 100 people have checked the code and are putting their reputation behind it(after final decision is made). rather than the illusion of acceptance, before the compile/release by only 5 key holders saying it must be trusted because 100 people done commits.

it also stops outsiders from DDoSing bitcoin.org or github, by having 100 copies distributed

agreed, though i dont want to raise the debate about why the hearn/R3/toomin implementations failed.. i atleast applauded that they done it decentralised. rather then push their agenda into only 1 implementation by force.
they ultimately failed for other reasons. but not forcing it into ust 1 controlled implementation, allowed for choice

i think all new ideas should sit beside eachother to let the community decide.
EG if core want to release corev013sw.. (segwit) they also need corev012 to remain available so that it doesnt seem like forcing people to download and more of a choice.

so ultimately there would be 3 proposals to the community
bitcoin.org/corev012.exe (no change standard blocks) hash 12345
bitcoin.org/corev013sw.exe (segwit 1mb) hash 54321
bitcoin.org/corev0132mb.exe (2mb standard blocks) hash 34521

all available at multiple locations with file hashes to show its all legit and those multiple locations are putting their reputations on the line. EG
ciyam.org/corev012.exe (no change standard blocks) hash 12345
ciyam.org/corev013sw.exe (segwit 1mb) hash 54321
ciyam.org/corev0132mb.exe (2mb standard blocks) hash 34521
eligius.st/corev012.exe (no change standard blocks) hash 12345
eligius.st/corev013sw.exe (segwit 1mb) hash 54321
eligius.st/corev0132mb.exe (2mb standard blocks) hash 34521
sipa.com/corev012.exe (no change standard blocks) hash 12345
sipa.com/corev013sw.exe (segwit 1mb) hash 54321
sipa.com/corev0132mb.exe (2mb standard blocks) hash 34521
lauda.org/corev012.exe (no change standard blocks) hash 11111
lauda.org/corev013sw.exe (segwit 1mb) hash 54321
lauda.org/corev0132mb.exe (2mb standard blocks) hash 11111

then we can see that some hashes dont match and still have other locations of genuine hashes.. and if bitcoin.org gets DDoSed or raided by authorities and shut down.. theres still other locations..

rather than
bitcoin.org/corev013sw.exe or STFU

Laughable - there should be no voting. Bitcoin is not a democracy.
The fact that classic devs don't see this proves they don't get Bitcoin and what it's all about.

I see where you're coming from, but some kind of humans have to write the code when all is said and done, this stuff can't write itself. The Core developer in charge of commits to make good decisions for the network, Wladimir van der Laan, has made much more long-term decisions, commited from a wide range of public contributors, and really smoothly managed releases compared to the andresen management period.

So I can sympathise with your wish list, but they're going to happen in a sequence, not simulatnaeously. SegWit will happen first, as allowing the beginning of fee competition now is pretty low impact (but good as an introduction to that world). It makes sense to me, and the only real alternative is to start or back a dev team fork or a competing altcoin.


Well, you can argue successfully that this is already happening: we've had the Hearn led fork attempt, then the Garzik led job.


um, they have a torrent going normally too? You're getting it from multiple locations then, any good?

ok april fools.. ha ha... nice deflection of the main point (you do love to knit pick the small points to not answer the main point)

so here goes

so can we just ignore the implementations that are done by negative social drama.(both camps)

and find a way to have clean code implementations of:
2mb block
segwit
without bad code or social ramifications thus not having to worry about who or why.. because ultimately whats in the code is important..

even if that means 100+ coders release both implementations, to allow decentralized choice without the worry of hidden agenda or single source of downloads. and then let the community choose which features they want the most.
and only when consensus has agreed to high readiness for whichever implementation is better.. the miners and merchants then and only then upgrade once consensus and readiness has been shown.

it will atleast stop the debate of only 2 sources of control, and opens up the decentralization of code. because part of the social debate has been that core wants only one download location of implementation(theirs) which isnt decentralized or as open as believed, and can lead to corruption from within. if we all ust download from one location.