Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 110. (Read 157162 times)

OK Frap.doc Junior, where's the citation for your outrageous/libelous "billionaire bribed Gmax to cripple Bitcon" claim?  No rush, we'll wait.

...

...

Anyway, Lightning is one possible implementation for the general idea of a payment channel.  It's like how there's more than one kind of band-aid, but there is the well-known official Band-Aid too (and they come in different shapes/sizes/fun designs/prices/materials).

If you don't know what write caches are and why it's a Very Good Thing for your CPU, hard drive, OS, and torrent client to each have one, you'll never understand, much less like, payment channels such as Lightning.  Sorry about that.   

As for side chains, you may be able to think of them like cities or counties within a state.  They can set their own local laws as they like, as long as they do not conflict with the nation they are part of.  Your Bitcoins have to obey the local laws while they are visiting a sidechain, but can leave if they don't like it.

Good luck in school.  I recommend doing eye care; it seems cushy.  A few minutes zapping with the Lazik, a few minutes chatting up the customers, and then you can spend the rest of the day posting about how much you love buying Frappucinos with Bitcoin discounts, and how Bitcoin will surely choke to death if tx fees at Starbucks ever went above 10 cents.

with segwit released .. old pre-fork clients will no longer be full checking nodes as signatures wont be included by default.. if old clients tweaked the sourcecode to allow themselves to get the extra signature data that segwit hides, to regain the position of being full checking nodes again.. then the data wont be 1mb under a segwit1mb limit.. it would be 2m of real archival fully checkable data.. if segwit in 2017 finally implemented the 2mb limit.. actual real life (not theory) data including signatures would be 4mb.. not their faked 2mb of uncheckable data

my numbers are not law.. they are just used as examples to show that if you include the hidden data, you know the stuff that FULL checking nodes need.. its bigger then what segwit wants to admit to

they want to make users not be full checking nodes and have less data. and undersell the real data requirements that full nodes will receive

The formula is:

base x 4 + segwit <= 4,000,000 bytes

you keep bringng this up, is this correct? From what I understand, with segwit, it will only be 1MB for older pre-soft-fork clients. and 2mb or more for new clients. The tx and sig will be in separate data. not sure if there will be a size limit for the sig part of 1mb or more?

If Bitcoin can be destroyed by "inexperienced bankers" it doesn't deserve to live.  If Bitcoin can be crippled by "blockstream people" it doesn't deserve to live.

Notice: When the experiment ceases to be viable (ie provide useful information), it will be terminated and replaced with a new version utilizing appropriately modulated control variables.

^That's what Guy Corem and his brothers-in-arms are saying.

We'd love for SHA-256 to keep working for our Honey Badger, but if SHA-256 turns out to be fatally allergic to bee stings or cobras then it's time for an upgrade.

Consequently, this is Bitcoin Civil War 2 melodrama is much ado about nothing.

The SHA-256 miners will keep their jobs as the diligent, hard-working, and supremely well-paid security guards of the socioeconomic majority's Most Serene Republic.

But they will cease further forays into Palace Intrigue, because they are merely the current SHA-256 PoW means to the end of distributed antifragile Nakamoto Consensus.

There's nothing very special about the SHA-256 PoW.  Not anymore than there was about 1MB at the time it was selected as the max block size.

Bitcoin is not married to the SHA-256 PoW.  If there is a 51% mining attack by Toominista hard forkers, the Holy Blockchain is already at risk of catastrophic consensus failure, so the small block militia has little to lose and everything to gain by swapping out the centralized, compromised, and failing SHA-256 PoW for a different one. 

It's no different than replacing car's broken engine.  In the framework of the Bitcoinmobile, a new (and improved) PoW engine will still do its job, which is turning energy into Power.

It doesn't really matter if it's Scrypt, Cryptonote, constellations of prime numbers, Keccak (luke-jr) or the thing GPU-only Guy is proposing (I'm calling it CoreCycle).  All it has to be is at least as good as SHA-256, but not SHA-256.

If the SHA-256 miners try to be the boss of the Bitcoin owners, they will be fired.  Because they are so exquisitely specialized and thus completely vulnerable to PoW shift, they will quickly back down.  As mining profits have been driven down to marginal rates, SHA-256 miners cannot afford to risk missing a single 1MB block because they are fooling around with "not much testing needed" 2MB ones.

Who would understand that better than Guy Corem, CEO of Spondoolies?  _{(No points if you said 'Adam Back' or 'luke-jr!')}   

21 million is nothing to those guys. Literally nothing.


How sure is quite sure?


How so?

All great open source projects have been funded with private investments at least to some extent.

Most VCs in Blockstream have used, AFAIK, their own private trust fund.

In other words, they're playing with house money. Moreover they probably own bitcoins and feel Blockstream can provide value to their investment.

Slowly but surely the true colors of the Tooministas come to light



The shades of socialism are unmistakeable.

Their 2MB hardfork nothing but a red-herring to hide their real plans of "making Bitcoin great again" through democratic demagogy.




Evidently, as this very information slowly finds its way through the veneer of bullshit they've managed to deceive various miners and chinese participants with, the chinks in the armour of agitprop is showing.




As was expected of fractious ventures, your shit stinks as much as other similarly flavored XTs & scamcoins. Consensus is forming. Classic getting forked off.

So what the hell is Liquid then?


Whatever. Everything is R3KT anyway.

liquid is not an altcoin or a side chain. its a completely different token measure,

just like some of the examples i mentioned are not proper blockchain currencies.. my point was more about the creating value out of nothing

Are you really naive enough to believe that venture capital
wants to simply fund an open source project?  I'm quite sure that
there is some business plan and a way for Blockstream to become
profitable.  Blockstream has not been transparent with their business
model but we can all take educated guesses.

I thought Lightning was the payment channel.


3 years resident, 2 years intern.


No, I'm not even a real doctor.

Liquid is a payment channel, not a pegged sidechain.  They are completely different things.  Do you not understand how Bitcoin works?

Please advice on your exact degree of technical incompetence so we may patiently better meet your educational deficit's requirements for amelioration.  Have you ever even used a compiler or written a script?

And what is the name of this billionaire who supposedly bribed Gmax to cripple Bitcoin?  Do you have a cite for that assertion?

You really should form opinions after learning the facts, not the other way around.   

Liquid is a pegged sidechain. Not an altcoin.

because a few million is just 10,000 btc.... yet if they cripple bitcoin and move everyone over to liquid.. then they are set to have millions of liquid to sell to noobs, not thousands
look at the ripple, nxt, ethereum pre-sales and shtcoin premine as a guide to the plan

Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why? Liquid is a pegged sidechain.


So BOTH sides of the scaling Bitcoin debate are against you?

nah the masses demand a technical team of developers that are willing to please..

the only problem is that the inexperienced bankers want to destroy bitcoin so that people invest in their fiat.
the only problem is the blockstream people want to cripple bitcoin growth so that people will invest in their 'liquid'

neither band camp wants to serve the general community with more capacity for bitcoin and both sides argue with doomsday scenario's that expanding bitcoin for general use is bad

The masses demand an inexperienced team of developers willing to please! The technical community will only stand in the doorway for so long.

Yes, Classic is renowned among crypto professionals for its agile, fail-fast "not much testing needed" approach.

Have the amateur ToominClowns started signing git commits yet?



I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Go tell BitcoinObituaries.com all about this week's d0000msday forecast.  Your [email protected] style hand-wringing is a better ideological fit over there.