Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 112. (Read 157163 times)

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.

Can't stump the Trump.
Can't crash the p2p electronic cash.

tell me Lauda,  did your arrogance go to new heights
when you became bitcointalk staff, or were you always
this way?   

You speak as if your opinions are god given truths
and anyone who disagrees must be either a shill or
ignorant.

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.

Bitcoin has been constantly evolving over the years. It is just that you do not understand the true meaning of that word (e.g. infrastructure upgrades, soft forks). I'm actually worn out and have lowered the amount of posts on this matter.

Who is them?  Blockstream? 
I'm not sure why anyone would think
'them' (whoever them is) having infinite veto power would
be a good idea.

The problem with the idea above is Bitcoin can never evolve
and/or remains under centralized development.
 
Also, if 'them' constantly vetoes needed changes ,
then it is simply a tyranny of a minority, which is probably worse.

If enough want something different, there will be a fork.
It will end up as 2 coins or the minority will capitulate
and join the majority..

Classic REKT

This is a subtle point. With Bitcoin, the market is always right. It's pretty heavy.


So technically there is no difference?

Only Adam Back knows the truth. All the others are ignorant.

After he dismiss bitcoin when he first heard about it, he only came back to Bitcoin in November 2013 because of the bubble but... he is our guide, we should follow him because only him knows the truth.

If the mining industry is ignorant of what a hard fork implies, I'd say we're forked, no? I mean, with a year's worth of scaling conferences, no one was able to educate them? Or?
Anyone wishing to switch to Classic can do so as simply as upgrading to the next version of Core. Easy peasy.

You are not rude, but you are wrong. They are not ignorant for supporting Classic, they are ignorant because of their lack of knowledge in regards to a hard fork. My opinion is valid, because it is fact that people/services/merchants that do not update will be cut off from the network. One month is a small window to upgrade.

By supporting Classic, they are supporting Classic. You feel that "they are ignorant at best," tho please don't think me rude if I discount your opinion. They've got millions invested and possibly do have a clue. Conversely, if they do not, we're pretty much forked anyhow.

Classic release is expected next week
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41qdrt/bitcoin_classic_update_email_for_subscribers_tldr/

It's interesting to see how Back frames the Nakamoto consensus as democracy.

What he doesn't get is that in effect the Nakamoto consensus is a proxy for a market mechanisms. Democracy is not market, the two are entirely different beasts.

He thinks it's a struggle between democracy and logic whereas it's a struggle between market (what is called democracy) and central planning (what he called logic).

If Bitcoin is forked it will only means that miners care about the long term value of the system, not that they are illogical people who follow demagogic arguments. His views of the world is incredibly patronizing ("I am logical, the other are illogical"). He doesn't get that logic is a poor guide in a complex environment.

Not exactly wrong nor right. If they really think that this can/should be done in 1 month then they are ignorant at best. A hard fork should be scheduled at least 6 months from now. Everyone needs time to upgrade and anyone who does not will be cut off. If they do it within 1 month you can be sure that a lot of people and services will be cut off and chaos will strike.

The mining industry is ignorant? Horrifying, considering they secure our coins
As in "without them, the coin you hold would be worth, roughly, 3 toenail clippings."

If you think that there is going to be democracy with Toomin, then think again. You have no idea what you're supporting. There is no consensus right now and Core is not preventing it.

They are ignorant at best.
They obviously have no clue what they want with this. Why wait 1 month? Do the hard fork in 24 hours, it seems only reasonable. 

1.
blocks wont be 1.99 straight off the bat.. just like blocks were not 0.99 constantly after the may 2013 saga..
infact miners would only risk 1.005mb at first and then slowly increase when they are comfortable... allowing for alot of buffer space for expansion when ready..
EG the 1mb rule which equates to 52gb potential.. is not over 35000gb in size today.. so dont expect the blockchain to be growing by 104gb every year..
the 2mb is "potential" not actual

2. the cost?
2mb if they were indeed completely filled to the top, the data would only be 104gb a year AT WORSE.. which for just $100 can get you 2terrebyte hard drive (20 years)..
so spending $100 for 20 years or the equivalent of $5 a year is not that expensive..

3. do you think bitcoin-core will help.. do you realise that once fighting for months that screwing with signatures to save a few bytes of data is a "good thing".. they then want to increase data of a transaction with wacky new transaction types that hide the value people spend.. thus not helping with data bloat as promised.. even LN needs more than usual data per transaction to achieve a working system.. so dont expect leaner transaction data for very long..
 
honestly a ledger that doesnt contain signatures and doesnt show the values linked to addresses, or doesnt show every movement because its done on other less transparent networks... is no longer a open and transparent ledger.. thanks to bitcoin cores plans

I can not believe it, but I agree with Icebreaker on something. If classic somehow took over it would crush Bitcoin. I do think all of these Bitcoin-(some random crap name here) fork attempts are good in a way. It is making the community more aware and involved with Bitcoins issues moving forward. I though classic was already dead after China said they want to stick with core anyways. What will the next one be named? Bitcoin Reloaded? Bitcoin Redux?

I hear what you're saying and its cool you're actually running a node, but if Bitcoin is going to grow, the blockchain is necessarily going to be growing quicker, even with segwit, even with LN.

Because a lot of people will have problems running a node on their computer if the block size starts increasing x2 times. Me and a lot of people are going to give up with running a node. I can afford it right now but at x2 pace the blockchain will be too big and I can't afford more hard disks now. There are broke and modest people in the community too that want to help running a node, no need to kick those out when we've got segwit now.
The more time we can resist with a small block size the more time for people like me to save up money for more hardware so we don't lose spread-out nodes.

How exactly is classic's plan to increase to 2MB at odds with 'a censorship resistant Bitcoin'?

Btw, its a very good article, it explains exactly why there is support for Classic among both corporations and individuals.