ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 113.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on January 23, 2016, 10:24:24 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on January 23, 2016, 10:19:24 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on January 23, 2016, 10:07:14 AM

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

Like I said before, if you read my post again, you can see that I understand certain corporations have an interest in this, but not actual people that hope to have a censorship resistant Bitcoin long term. I guess you are one of those morons given your lack of reading comprehension.

"Certain corporations" = Blockstream?
Also mind your manners, faggot.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: bargainbin on January 23, 2016, 10:19:24 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on January 23, 2016, 10:07:14 AM

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

Like I said before, if you read my post again, you can see that I understand certain corporations have an interest in this, but not actual people that hope to have a censorship resistant Bitcoin long term. I guess you are one of those morons given your lack of reading comprehension.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on January 23, 2016, 10:07:14 AM

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic?

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic? I mean the information is already out there, we all know it's better to do segwit than force a hard fork risking a lot of stuff and ruin a lot of people running nodes on modest hardware. Are these guys just trolling at this point? I understand some corporations have agendas, but some guy posting in a forum? what does he gain unless he just doesn't still get the facts straight? i doubt they are being paid to post this crap so I guess they legitimately think raising the block size now is a good idea because they aren't capable of understanding the tradeoffs.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 23, 2016, 06:46:14 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Quote

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

Quote

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

Quote

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from? The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

Quote

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork?

Consensus...yeah....

I'm pretty sure the Blockstream team could come to a consensus amongst themselves
on how to scale Bitcoin.

They just don't agree with the rest of the community (Gavin, coinbase, bitfury, etc)

It's easy to say "there's no consensus" when you're the one who's preventing it.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 23, 2016, 04:20:28 AM

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary. That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

Bitcoin should remain sovereign, if it is to be a succesful global currency. I hope the majority of bitcoin users dont let the trojan horse in their gates.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Lauda on January 23, 2016, 04:43:08 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 23, 2016, 04:20:28 AM

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary. That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

I agree that XT was a probing attack, never intended to succeed.

Too bad for the hard forkers that all the best thinkers are on Team Cypherpunk and wish to keep Bitcoin diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

The attackers only have force of numbers and uncreative strategies on their side. Poor things.

This sums up the frustrated Tooministas approach to subverting Bitcoin for the business requirements of the BIS:

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 23, 2016, 06:46:14 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Quote

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

Quote

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

Quote

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from? The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

Quote

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork?

Non-contentious hard forks (historically) addressed some outstanding issue that threatened Bitcoin's functionality. IE, they fixed something that was indisputably broken.

Contentious hard forks seek to fix or improve what "isn't broken" from the perspective of some non-negligible faction of the socioeconomic majority.

Block size is the perfect example of this. It pits the 'payment network' vs the 'store of value' clans.

Fortunately for the small block militia, Bitcoin was designed to protect minority opinions from the tyranny of the majority, by giving them nigh-infinite veto power.

Another way to say "contentious hard fork" is "breaking Bitcoin." They are functional equivalents, and equally impossible AFAIK.

Bitcoin was engineered to withstand a continuous, coordinated attack by all the world's nation states, banks, and hax0rz. It's not going to change just because some Gavinista-cum-Toominista assclowns make a lot of noise on Reddit about "Capacity Cliff" and "Hard Landing" FUD.

The "Free transactions 4eva" dimwits never had one iota of a chance in hell of perturbing Honey Badger.

The funniest thing is they know that, but refuse to accept it. Cheesy

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: franky1 on January 23, 2016, 06:30:39 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 23, 2016, 04:43:08 AM

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

weldone. thank you for making my point about the 95% consensus.
even i hate that gavin has lobbied miners and exchanges before users.

explain how to successfully poll all bitcoin users for their preference, Franky. I think someone amply demonstrated the problem with the "95% of trolls support Bitcoin x" line

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Quote

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

Quote

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

Quote

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from? The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

Quote

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: Lauda on January 23, 2016, 04:43:08 AM

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

weldone. thank you for making my point about the 95% consensus.
even i hate that gavin has lobbied miners and exchanges before users.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 23, 2016, 04:20:28 AM

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary. That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2481

Im interested in seeing how this will work out in future.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on January 22, 2016, 01:32:20 PM

Quote from: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 12:55:49 PM

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.

What is the difference between a 1mb block size and a 1.001 mb block size? Is there any logical boundary why the 1mb is the block limit or is it only arbitrary?

If so, then raising the block size from 1mb to 1.001mb would cause any harm? Or the mere fact of raising the block size is the issue here (due to panic, dividing the userbase, and creating division in users)?

I`m just trying to understand things here.

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary. That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Quote

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

Good news, we've been instructed on how such issues are settled on the network:

What a relief.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 687

Merit: 269

I think of the user agent as a last line of defense mechanism.

We actually could deploy an upgrade where node would copy the same user agent used by the node speaking to.

This way we would not get REKT/banned by hadfork nodes keeping bug-for-bug compatibility at all costs.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 03:55:38 PM

It is extremely tricky to not be gamed and sybil attacked. The best we have come up with thus far is PoW and that is far from perfect. It would be great to roll out some tests on a sidechain and attempt to game them.

i agree that knowing what versions people have can then be sybil attacked by biased people adding a crap tonne of nodes of their particular preference.. but the flip side is that the different band camps can argue forever saying team gavincoin is winning.. then 2 seconds later team blockstream say they are winning without either ever having to show proof.. because they both wont allow or trust actual version statistics to be publicized, and if then publicized they'd simply debate more that the numbers must be fake.

id say its not impossible to get a fair understanding of what the implementation preference is, just not easy to guage what is honest numbers versus sybil attack numbers... impossible is too strong a word..

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: franky1 on January 22, 2016, 03:43:43 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Quote

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

well its not impossible.. a hint, (bip14):useragent..... and bitnodes..
though im not sure why you think knowing just the version type someone has suddenly made having the blockchain irrelevant.. (secretly i know you mean if there was a central means of communications then why bother decentralizing the blocks.. but thats not the point)

was the blockchain irrelevant when searching for nodes was done via IRC.. or dns?

It is extremely tricky to not be gamed and sybil attacked. The best we have come up with thus far is PoW and that is far from perfect. It would be great to roll out some tests on a sidechain and attempt to game them.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Quote

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

well its not impossible.. a hint, (bip14):useragent..... and bitnodes..
though im not sure why you think knowing just the version type someone has suddenly made having the blockchain irrelevant.. (secretly i know you mean if there was a central means of communications then why bother decentralizing the blocks.. but thats not the point)

was the blockchain irrelevant when searching for nodes was done via IRC.. or dns?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

-snip-

Thank you for answering this. I was about to write something similar and post but I'm having network related issues. What I wrote about, was the situation after deployment (consensus does not matter then, since the activation already happened) in both cases.

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 22, 2016, 02:47:06 PM

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that? ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

Exactly. It is impossible to measure how many users/services have upgraded and thus a hard fork needs much more time. Rushing one is very bad.

Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 113. (Read 157137 times)