Author

Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 111. (Read 157162 times)

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
January 24, 2016, 08:50:34 PM
#UNR3KT

Quote
As Miami conference has not reached consensus, the Chinese community members gathered in Beijing to seek consensus within China. The aim is to prevent split of community, seek common ground while reserving differences. Core has said that a scaling without consensus is too risky. We will give them the consensus.

(Did I do that right?)

No, this is how you do it.


Quote
Lesson learned from the Classic coup attempt or why Core needs to prepare a GPU only PoW

Guy Corem
CEO of Spondoolies-Tech


https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

The Classic coup attempt orchestrated by the Classic Kabal (Marshall Long, Olivier Janssens, Jonathan Toomim, Michael Toomin, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik) demonstrated how an organized and determined small group of individuals came very close to be able to change Bitcoin development governance model, riding the popular demand to increase the block size limit.

In the beginning of January Olivier Janssens and Mashall Long asked Jonathan Toomim to be the lead maintainer of a “simple” 2MB Hard Fork, called BitcoinClassic, after Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik refused the role.

....

What will happen to Core chain if Classic will be activated?

Will Classic activation mean the end to the Core chain ?

Not necessarily; Careful planning on behalf of Core will allow it survive.

I believe that Core developers will split into three camps: Some will join Classic Chain (and fork), some will quit Bitcoin altogether, and some will continue development on Core Chain (and fork).

....

Miners and pool operators, friends and partners, I urge you to rescind support for this hostile political takeover and keep Bitcoin growing within its existing consensus-based governance.





legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
January 24, 2016, 08:16:16 PM
#UNR3KT

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
January 24, 2016, 08:14:42 PM
Then consider the possibility you "FREE TX 4EVA" Tooministas are useful idiots for the R3 darkside, or, GTFO n000b!

its not about free transactions. in 20 years i too expect miners to be paid fairly for their work. but it needs to be affordable. and scaling needs to start sooner to allow for slow growth over 20 years to then be viable for miners to get a nice payday for their work. rather than a mad rush when the usability bubble is about to burst.

EG if you small blockers want to stick to 1mb, then miners will want $2.50 per transaction in 20 years just to get the $10,000 a block based on 4000 tx's(like the $10,000 they get thanks to the block reward today)

bitcoin needs to scale to allow more transactions when needed.. like a buffer to allow growth, rather then bottle-necking to cause a demand fee rise. and then only change when the bubble is about to burst.

much easier to have a 2mb buffer sooner, to allow 4001 transactions of 8000 buffer.. and then when miners are comfortable with the milisecond extra processing time for that extra tx. they try 4002, then 4003, slowly over time, rgow when they are comfortable processing more... because miners are not going to throw 8000 transactions(1.999mb) into their processing time straight away. thats just illogical doomsday scenarios that doesnt benefit miners. and is just the crappy hypothetical that trolls use to misdirect people into thinking growth is bad..

only when miners are happily near the 8000tx average in a few years due to comfortable slow growth, then the block limit rise debate can be debated again.

all the meandered debates that dont address growth in a different manner than blockstreams plans to get everyone over to their liquid alt.. is just boring waffle that doesnt inspire bitcoin growth and just distracts people from code change debate.. which i know you love baiting and switching, not only in debate, but also in future plans.

but i do love how you say bitcoin can cope.. while at 90% transaction capacity (false pretense there is 10% buffer free to expand) yet less publicly there is 900% second class(not priority) waiting in the wind(mempool) for hours. which debunks your attempts to say bitcoin can cope.

wouldn't you rather have bitcoin actually do its job properly and actually process transactions in a timely manner because they have more capacity as a buffer to allow for growth?.... or is it all about the profits from screwing people over that interests you, while you hold your bag of 'liquid' that you want to be priced at $400 a pop, while slowly killing off bitcoin
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
January 24, 2016, 07:32:25 PM
WOW, that is a shocker.. now icebreaker sounds like a greedy banker.. i guess he has moved over to the R3 darkside

happy that centralised exchanges who send large amounts of 10k coins can be sent in one go but completely ignores that 5000+ PEOPLE (separate transactions) may want to use their funds at the same time.. but cant


That doesn't make me a "greedy banker."  Rather, it makes me one who realizes the One True Holy Blockchain can keep the bankers' potentially-useful natural greed in check, by ensuring transparent and honest financial institutions.

I've always known the destiny of private-sector digital currency (eventually/ultimately to be known as "Bitcoin) is to replace central banking, by acting as an easily auditable 'digital gold' mother-of-all-settlement-networks.

Hal Finny said so 5 years ago.  Where have you been?  Do you think Bitcoin is here to replace commercial banking?  Or make it more profitable when parasitic start-ups resell expensive, externally-subsidized blockchain real estate to impress their institutional backers?

Do you think this is about replacing fucking Apple Pay and fucking Square hipster/yuppie/Person-of-Walmart consumer quotidian bullshit?   Cheesy

Compare

Quote
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

to

Quote
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "low-powered money" that serves as a gift certificate for Starbucks that issue their own delicious seasonal Frappucinos." cypherdoc, probably.

Then consider the possibility you "FREE TX 4EVA" Tooministas are useful idiots for the R3 darkside, or, GTFO n000b!
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
January 24, 2016, 06:42:13 PM
WOW, that is a shocker.. now icebreaker sounds like a greedy banker.. i guess he has moved over to the R3 darkside

happy that centralised exchanges who send large amounts of 10k coins can be sent in one go but completely ignores that 5000+ PEOPLE (separate transactions) may want to use their funds at the same time.. but cant
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
January 24, 2016, 03:14:44 PM
Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.

You couldn't be any more wrong.

The power in money is part functional, and part belief. The functional has/is been/being taken care of, but the belief is a person to person phenomenon. Attempts at leading popular hardforks from third-parties to the Bitcoin dev team require commensurate popular support: belief. It's such an important aspect of what gives money it's value, and it's pliable in the defining stages of a new money. So, a bit of rhetorical discourse in public will thrash the issue out quite well, I would say. Shows the context to those who don't talk publicly, but use public forums for information anyway.

You can preach in public all you want to and simply confuse the people even more than they already are. There are so many completely incorrect views in this thread being presented as the gospel who's to say which one the general public will latch on to as their own. All the preaching in the world from people not in control will have very little to do with the decisions that are made. Bitcoin is a financial tool. Financial decisions are typically made by those who have the greatest stake in the game. None of those groups are here.

But I do understand where you're coming from and I suppose it's better to have general discussions in public as opposed to hidden on the TBF forum.
hero member
Activity: 687
Merit: 500
January 24, 2016, 03:01:21 PM
Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. And I don't know if I would continue with cryptocurrencies if Bitcoin forks without consensus.
It would show that mob rules and what's stopping them from forking other cryptocurrencies?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
January 24, 2016, 02:36:18 PM
Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.

You couldn't be any more wrong.

The power in money is part functional, and part belief. The functional has/is been/being taken care of, but the belief is a person to person phenomenon. Attempts at leading popular hardforks from third-parties to the Bitcoin dev team require commensurate popular support: belief. It's such an important aspect of what gives money it's value, and it's pliable in the defining stages of a new money. So, a bit of rhetorical discourse in public will thrash the issue out quite well, I would say. Shows the context to those who don't talk publicly, but use public forums for information anyway.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
January 24, 2016, 02:18:20 PM
Is anyone in this thread in a position of power with the ability to change the outcome of this heated discussion? Here's a clue:

Are you a developer in the group capable of coding the changes that determine the direction of Bitcoin? No, then you have no power.

Are you the responsible party controlling one of the large mining farms? No, then you have no power.

Are you the head of one of the Bitcoin mega corporate businesses that pay developers and have inside connections in the Bitcoin space? No, then you have no power.

You're all beating your heads against the wall created by your opponents for no reason. Vote with your feet. Wait for the outcome and leave Bitcoin for something else if you don't agree with it.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 24, 2016, 02:15:59 PM
Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?

Forking competition is not the ideal route.  But if cooperation proves to be impossible, what is the alternative?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
January 24, 2016, 02:08:34 PM
Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?

... cause "governance reasons"

the downfall of altcoins: now they just pretend being bitcoin.

legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
January 24, 2016, 02:07:17 PM
Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?

... cause "governance reasons"
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
January 24, 2016, 02:04:13 PM
Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.

No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
January 24, 2016, 01:43:24 PM
Just your everyday Bitcoin life.

legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 24, 2016, 12:45:57 PM
The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

When did I ever say that?

When did you ever say anything through the centre of your mouth? Centralisation is the working governance model for open source software projects, no less so for a consensus driven network such as Bitcoin.

This "decentralise everything down to your fingernail fungus" bleeting has got to stop Jonald, or I'm going to insist on you decentralising your Bitcoin holdings to your fellow decentralists. And your wife/girlfriend, give it up jonald, we'll have no more of your centralising nonsense now!

It seems that having an exchange of ideas without attacking someone is a challenge for you.

Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed.  In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others.   Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.


legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
January 24, 2016, 12:29:10 PM
The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

When did I ever say that?

When did you ever say anything through the centre of your mouth? Centralisation is the working governance model for open source software projects, no less so for a consensus driven network such as Bitcoin.

This "decentralise everything down to your fingernail fungus" bleeting has got to stop Jonald, or I'm going to insist on you decentralising your Bitcoin holdings to your fellow decentralists. And your wife/girlfriend, give it up jonald, we'll have no more of your centralising nonsense now!
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 24, 2016, 11:39:18 AM
The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

When did I ever say that?
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
January 24, 2016, 11:28:03 AM
No. I'm a very strict person and pretty rational most of the time (although I do fight fire with fire as well). What I just said is true; when I end up being wrong I admit to it unlike the majority here who tends to go into endless discussions just to avoid saying that they're wrong; I was not talking about the governance model either.

but i await your apology, which took a month for you to be proven wrong.. even when you said weeks ago you spoke to all those involved to get your facts right we soon learned you still lacked the full understanding and that it took until only a few days ago for you to ask the right questions.. and be told even by those involved that my mindset was correct

Almost all of franky's posts in regards to SegWit are at least partially wrong though, and some are completely wrong.


-snip-
I won't waste my time going through the basics again. There's a security risk, i.e. new attack vector. Whether you believe that someone is going to try abusing it or not does not change the fact of its existence.

the reason I said franky's posts were interesting was because I haven't verified them Wink he might have good points, he might not!
He's starting to look like a hopeless case though.


so my ongoing rant has been that segwit will cut off other implementations from fully validating unless they too upgraded to be segwit supporters.
your rant that everything will be fine...
you even said that the dev's said everything would be fine.. but................

Quote
[01:03] sipa what about a client that does not support segwit?
[01:03] Lauda: why would you care to?
[01:03] Just out of curiousity.
[01:04] they won't see the witness data
[01:04] but they also don't care about it

[01:04] Someone mentioned it. So it is not possible for a client that does not support Segwit to see the witness data?
[01:04] Lauda: it is certainly possible
[01:04] Lauda: but it's meaningless to do.
[01:05] of course it is "possible"... but that "possible" just means supporting segwit

[01:05] imagine people wanted to stick with bitcoin-core 0.11 and not upgrade, will they be cut off from getting witness data, by defalt if segwit gets consensus?
[01:06] Chiwawa_: they could certainly code up their wallet to get it, but again what's the point? are they going to check the witness themselves?

so unless other implementations add more code just to be able to fully validate again. they are going to get cut off and just passing the parcel of data they dont understand.. which in itself is a risk if a non-segwit miner adds data it cant check into a block.

basically
bitcoin-core v0.1
bitcoin-core v0.11
bitcoin-core v0.12
bitcoin classic
bitcoin unlimited
bitcoin xt
bitcoin .. whatever the other dozen implementations are
will be cut off from seeing signatures if segwit gets consensus..
and that makes bitcoincore v0.13SW the dictator

have a nice day.. as you are becoming a hopeless case

so i am actually happy you now know more then last month.. but now its time you cool off the attitude and pretending everyone is wrong.. even after they proved the opposite..
hero member
Activity: 687
Merit: 500
January 24, 2016, 11:21:29 AM
The bottom line is that Bitcoin hasn't perfected
its governance model.  Neither extreme (contentious
hard forks with no abandon OR a dictatorship) is
likely ideal.

And the perfect governance model is democracy?
Yeah right, let me know how that works out for ya.

Jump to: