Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 107. (Read 157162 times)

lol 2 years later, and Franky still doesn't get the joke 

That. Laughing at someone for stating a fact is...

seen it.. but doesnt mean it didnt happen..
toomin proposed something.. that also got rejected.. so both got rejected.. but doesnt mean it didnt happen, they both proposed changing the cap

whats next, say mark karpeles is now ok to be part of the community because his theft was 2 years ago.
compare that to the cryptsy saga..

again i dont want karpeles or M long.. but im thinking you would like mark kerpeles back in that analogy because it was 2 years ago..
see time doesnt matter..

01.04.2014. How can you not see it?

funny thing is that although i hate classic due to the banker debate. (not related to code or blockchain)

core is not that much better in regards to the 21m coin cap..(is related to code and blockchain)
pieter wuille of segwit/core fame himself wanted a change to the coin cap.
new coins every 200 years. so the core devs are not so innocent either https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0042

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.

There is a problem with a centralized voting platform and I'm pretty sure that you are going to figure it out yourself if you think about it. The votes could suddenly start dissapearing or changing sides (in addition to other things e.g. sybil attacks as recently demonstrated).

Well, in truth it could be changed. However the voting in the link above shows how popular an idea that would be.

Jonathan Toomim on Bitcoin Classic: everything can be voted on, including 21M coins limit


http://pastebin.com/index/B8YQr5TQ

https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/21-million

How does that explain how badly the big-blocks-as-a-coup-attempt is going? Oh yeah, you're trying to tell lies about the "truth machine", that's gonna work.

A toomin is a toomin. scammer et al.

Anyway, i see hostfat flying at the rescue of the weak and defenceless..

Such hero. Social media justice much.

So exactly what did I do wrong? I'm a liar who's spreading FUD because I linked an interview where Michael Toomin is being interviewed? Did I maybe falsify the interview?  
I have did nothing wrong, stop trying to find ways of attacking people who are involved in the discussion. Thank you.

I dislike their promotion of their own site though. How could people call out the Core developers because of Blockstream when the Toomin brothers are very concerned with their own platform?

---

---

Update:
If you had listened to the interview before posting nonsense you would know that it was Micheal Toomin.

He is Michael Toomin, the brother of Jonathan Toomim, who is leading Bitcoin Classic.

Did you know this? Are you a liar spreading FUD as many other?

Did you know that they are two brothers?

The Michael's job is making a good system to ask for opinions about the line that Bitcoin Classic should follow:
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it

Still, comparing the abilities and competence of two people just because their way of speaking is naive at best.

There are marketers that are able to speak about things that they really don't know, and still they are able easily sell it.

I hope they decrease difficulty in their fork. And then instamine 999999 bigblock BTC and dump it on their believers.

Seems they are stuck at rebranding and the readme file. Last merged pull request 6 days ago.


Also, they are debating for how much of the hash rate should they target for the fork.

At this pace, they will fork in 2020.

According to the 'opposing' party this does not matter at all and "Core is totalitarian" because they're very professional and trying to improve Bitcoin in the best way possible. Just listen to the interview that I've posted on the previous page and compare how Toomin speaks to Maxwell. The difference is astronomical.

meh stoned kid..




https://archive.is/55IKs

but Franky, don't you see? You use endless "logic" and examples, you wallpaper the place with it, and it's frequently got severely faulty details. You have a habit of getting 65% of the prosaic details perfect, but then getting the remaining 35% totally wrong, and it's usually the parts that are most important.


I haven't got time to address your wall-to-wall errors, I'd be here all day long (btw, is this your job?)



Suffice to say: you're wrong about SegWit

"It breaks backward compatibility slightly..." duh, it's an upgrade. To a network. What sort of magic are you expecting, full network compatibility with Bitcoin 0.1, OKPAY, Square? American Express maybe?

It's not blockstream or nothing, but it turns out blockstream with their LN solution has been the best solution to scale Bitcoin worldwide, until anyone has a better and realistic idea they are our best bet. Anyone still supporting Bitcoin Classic has no hope whatsoever.

not saying 8mb needs to happen tomorrow(thats a gavin coin agenda.. not the general community mindset).. the other debates about transaction fee's that get meandered into the blocksize debate dont need to be solved in 2 years either.. it can be slow growth over 20 years, when blockreward is smaller and transaction fees start becoming important(as transaction fees is not important today as a needed income source)..
neither am i saying that 8m is the limit in 20 years.. technology in 20 years will be capable of so much more

so if you go by a 20year mindset .. where technology differences between now and 20 years shows that scaling to the scales of your utopian dream of visa.. is possible in that longer time frame without the "datacentre" doomsday rhetoric, while also scaling up enough that in that long time frame. miners will have enough transaction capacity by then to earn their $10k a block income due to capacity buffer being available to charge fees of just a few pennies(atmost) per transaction.. instead of $$ per transaction under other shill doomsday scenario rhetoric

oh and as for visa's transaction per second estimate.. that is not based on their one network, visa actually does have multiple systems. one for each country/currency.. so dont be fooled by visas numbers. one of their networks cannot handle as much as you think.

and as i said over the nextfew years of just scaling up naturally (without bait and switching data). there can be other new methods of handling more transactions too..

im just sick of the blockstream agenda that is "our way or STFU" (not very open minded, open source, innovative, etc"

Even if we have 8MB, that would be 56 transactions per second? Still much more slow than centralized system like visa.

Centralized system can be used for micro payments, when the user collected all payments , user can move all his funds to block chain with 1 payment. To me this is the clear improvement. And lightning should work similar. I actually don't support lighting I'm neutral about it.

If somebody thinks they can divide the Bitcoin community and then overtake piece by piece they're deeply mistaken.