Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 108. (Read 157137 times)

satoshi himself envisioned upping the cap.. he even shown an example of it using block height 115000......
..yet we are approaching blockheight 400,000 and blockstream shills are still saying their way to not up the cap, is satoshi's way..
(facepalm)

i too dont agree with the classic stuf in regards to their R3 agenda.. all i and the community want is real capacity increases without bait and switching data for convenience

I believe that delete Satoshi and put Classic or Unlimited user agent is a clear disrespect.

These people openly disrespect Satoshi , to me this is a clear message.

it can be both..

segwit has 2 modes
default: dont send witness (<1mb data)
archival: send witness to implementations able to send the parameter to ask to be archival.(>1mb data)

old nodes do not have the parameter to ask to be archival so all they get is the default no witness <1mb crap

so as i said.
old nodes cut off from being full nodes as they can no longer check data..(without upgrading to be segwit complient)
segwit miners will want full data so they will be set to archival mode and thus they will pretend to only be getting 1mb of data, but will get more data. which goes against the blockstream shills rhetoric who have said china dont want to upgrade to 2mb rule, due to chinas fire wall not handling more than 1mb data (which i disagree with) or the rhetoric that storing more then 1mb data would require data centres*..(again disagree with)

so how is full archival miners magically not going to have firewall problems or need data centres.. like the doomsday myth rhetoric blockstream shills say would happen with a 2mb cap??

whats next.. only have transaction IDs in the "main" block.. and the actual data and signatures in a subblock.. to again have the illusion of more transactions per megabite, this time 12000tx-16000tx(instead of 6000-8000 by just shifting signatures to the side).. similar to SPV only asking for headers, but where real life actual full data is alot more (6mb-8mb instead of 2mb-4mb)

i do find it funny that lauda put me on ignore just minutes after HE got proved wrong when asking bitcoin-devs in IRC.. even weeks after saying he himself actually spoke to them alot back then.. yet the IRC conversation just a few days ago showed lauda lacked basic understanding.. and got proved wrong by the dev team saying the same things that i have been saying for a month..

it made me laugh even more that rather then learning indepth and understanding to then make a coherant rebuttle using real facts, real case scenario's.. all you blockstream shills can do is just say "you are wrong".. without getting into the detail of why, you just write waffle to twist words i said to show you didnt even understand what i was saying.

you dont use logic or examples of how it actually works. which makes you not helpful either.. if you want to prove someone wrong.. use detail, use proper explanations, use case scenario examples. quotes, etc

i sincerely do hope you get rich quick with your Liquid investments and move on with your lives.. as it seems something is causing you to get blinded by logic and enlightened only by the ass kissing and secret profiteering you may have been promised. maybe after yo get rich then your biased minds can settle down and concentrate on the community needs rather then blockstreams plans

* incase any blockstream shills pretend they never said that 2mb is bad because it would end up in centralisation and datacenters of super computers, rather than ordinary people

well how is segwit archival (real data over 1mb) not the same problem!!

have a nice day

This forum, and as every other social media, is "noise".

And "noise" has always been used to rule/manipulate/govern the herd. (needless to remind you that reddit is an MIT product - besides the killing of its founder Aaron Swartz, Google some InQTel weaponized corporation for mass dominance etc...)

Now whilst there is no doubt that the USG infiltrated, if not compromised bitcoin's public speakers (such as gavin), it is natural and healthy that people respond to the cheap socialist "bitocin is going to save the world with infinite transactions and mass adoption" propaganda.

Otherwise, people like the toomins scammers brothers  or charlatans a la peter r would have won the argument by no opposition.

Otoh as bitcoin rely on mathematics and raw energy, it is true that the dialogue/arguments are mostly useless.

People vote with their nodes and speculate with their money, and only selfish interests prevails when it comes to upgrade (or not) the protocol.


edit: and it least, this forum is way more entertaining and way less pitiful than the 50 loosers voting on that consider.it website or sucking up on the corporations big balls over at the VERified forum.


edit edit: notice the 1431 'other' client nodes, which are a perfect base to counter any contentious forks.
(and it is not the ~500 AWS SPV Redditard nodes that will threaten the integrity of the network's consensus)

That's exactly what I said, no one with any control or power is here. This thread is just pissing on yourself in a dark suit (it gives you a warm feeling all over but nobody notices).

I feel for you - unfortunately these people are not genuine as they are not interested in actually learning anything but instead posting incorrect information and just telling everyone else that they are right (it is also possible that they are being paid to post nonsense by those with vested interests).

This is why you don't have software developed by consensus.

Luckily I think that no-one actually gives a flying fuck about what is posted by such people in this forum (already hardly any technical people bother using this forum now so I doubt that these posts are having the slightest bit of influence with those that are actually doing the development work and I would very much doubt any respectable investment companies would spend their time reading the garbage posted here either).

http://slack.bitcoincore.org/logs/general/2016-01-23/

You can find it here.

What a despicable individual you are HostFat, shameless liar 

nothing new tho..



what can go wrong indeed?! ^^

I wouldn't want Coinbase to have full control over Bitcoin development any more than I would want Blockstream to have full control.  In fact, less so.

Yeah, it's funny how tomministas were using consider.it as a serious voting platform prior to this. With foundations like that, what could go wrong with something as simple as a bitcoin fork?  amirite?

LMAO

"Give Coinbase Full Control Over Bitcoin Development"

164 fully agree..

Someone seems to have created a ton of alt accounts to rig the voting, look at this... lol


https://archive.is/bQzIL

I did not mean that it is bad that they have shown their faces, rather that it is unfortunate that their true personas are like that.

That's true. However, I've met some fine people prior and during the debate; people that know a lot more and people that know a lot less (which did admit to being wrong and thanked me for spending my time helping them). Did anyone thank anyone in similar threads for doing their homework recently? Not really, they've continued to fight back. It seems that the virtue of admitting fault is becoming very rare. I have a certain limit after which I refuse to have any association/interaction with people.

---

---

Since this thread is about 'Toomin' I might as well leave this here and definitely worth a listen (start at 45 minutes).
According to Wikipedia and Toomin he uses over 500 programming languages.

At the risk of sounding like I just automatically disagree with everything you say... I disagree!

Only with that last bit though, I think its *very* good that the block size debate has made people show their true faces. Unfortunately I think the people this most applies to are so screwed up they won't even show the slightest bit of embarrassment/remorse, or whatever and more importantly won't learn anything :/

They will just do as you said, continue to argue black is white. Such is the nature of internet forums though

Hopefully thats something I can be wrong about!

This is why I've put several people on ignore, including him and Sebastian. They would rather 'die' than admit to being wrong so everything is futile. I do not want to waste any more time on such individuals even though I've really tried helping them.
The block size debate has made people around here show their true faces. It is quite unfortunate that it has come to this.

Total garbage, Franky.

You're basically trying to tell us that on one hand SegWit doesn't provide 4MB, and yet on the other hand, the old nodes won't have access to the data that you say doesn't even properly exist! It can't be both.


As I've said already, your ability to comprehend and explain this stuff needs alot of work. You're not currently well suited to helping others, you can't even help yourself. We are willing to help you, but your egotistical attitude leaves alot to be desired: I don't want to help someone who is so aggressive and so dogmatic.

You'll eventually find yourself thrashing around with no-one willing to help you, which would be a shame, as, like I've said, you're quite a likable character otherwise.

The code Blockstream writes is what's important, not who funds them.

Here is my original quote:

Did you read it or are you just responding to my avatar?

You want to know about Blockstream funding, look it up!

signature removal enables more tx per block.

yes its a given that it takes more data for more transactions. the reason for this is NOT to reduce real life data. The purpose IS TO INCREASE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS per block.


no. the problem IS NOT data size. The problem is number of transactions.


the max size was to limit spam, it was a last minute change and was always expected to be increased.

people dont care about the size of the data, the issue is the number of transactions. raising the limit will cause a hrd fork, while segwit will not.


You don't understand. The transactions will all be signed by private-keys, the only question is where the signature data is stored.

We are talking about ways to increase number of transactions per block. The size of data will increase. The expectation is that everyone upgrades, so every full node will be able to verify all transactions. The reason using this rather then just changing to 2MB is a question of a soft-fork vs a hard-fork.


Or maybe we are talking about two different things..