Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 116. (Read 157137 times)

Yes the censorship sucks, and they will use that against us to gain credibility. I think censorship should not be done even if we are right, it is just a bad thing to do.

To be honest I think Roger Ver agrees with Classic so when he is asked in interviews why he agrees with classic he can subtlety drop an advertisement about his website. "By the way Classic is censored in the official reddit thats why we created Bitcoin.com..." it's not that subtle actually.

It seems like miners are still sane and luckily it seems like Classic is going on the list of failed takeovers.

You forgot that he's the person who vouched for Mt.Gox solvency.  

I know. But money corrupts, and public statements may be paid for. That's why we should be careful and double vet anyting.



I never believed Visa scale. I never believed about To the Moon. That was the dream of the old generation, we believe in other things like Satoshi.

I don't ask for much. I consider every new block a huge victory for us.

Gentlemen, If we keep the system running until the next crisis, until the next bailouts, I believe we're all set.

This has been answered many times... Core Has a comprehensive scaling plan - https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/

If you just want to focus on the capacity side of scaling the latest details are -
1) segwit = effective 1.7MB to 2MB in April
2) Lightning network being tested and deployed later this year adding to that capacity
3) HF being planned now with cooperation of chinese miners for 2MB maxBlockSize for an effective 4MB+(lightning network will add to this) capacity in Feb/march 17'
4) Long term solutions like flexcap are being tested and will need to eventually be hardforked in



Roger Ver is a great guy and wants what is best for bitcoin. Core and him agree on the goals of trying to onramp as many people as possible but Roger Ver isn't as technical and thus doesn't completely understand all the network limitations and tradeoffs at play.

Yes i have noticed, despite the scaremongering of huge fees, I still pay 0.0001BTC and it works fine.

How about introducing a 1-1000 satoshi minimum TX fee, that would eliminate free transactions and reduce the attack vector from spammers?






There was always something fishy about it, i can detect propaganda easily, but with this one they almost had me fooled.

Thats why we should probably look at facts first and less about charisma and blindly following bitcoin celebrities.

For posterity: "The Toomin brothers, Bitcoin Classic's main devs are debating Core devs and trying to show them the light. It gets quite fishy at the end."

If we discover a real commerce activity, let me repeat: real commerce activity (not graphs that can be faked, or stress tests) overflowing to altcoins, then it's a valid moment to raise Bitcoin block size.

Until then, our fees gonna be cheap anyway, because you only have to pay more fee than spammers.

Since spammers are cheap asses, spammers are never going to pay a lot fees. For them it's waste of money.


Simple: Ver, Toomim, Hearn, Jeff Garzik are paid by N.Y Bankers, who try to overtake Bitcoin developement. But chinese miners seem to disagree.

Ok folks, now I finally understood that Core is the transparent way to go and that Classic has too many shady deals and hidden motives in the background.

Now that being said, how will Core scale to the ever increasing transaction space demand?

Classic atleast has a pattern: from 2mb to 8mb to 16mb so on...


How will Core deal with this problem? The segwit stuff is only a 1 shot thing, it will increase efficiency by say 30%, and save us 30% space.

And then what? What will happen after  the real block size becomes 4mb the transaction cost will increase nontheless? It will be no better than the current banking wire's and bitcoin will lose that charm, of cheap TX.


Question 2:  What do you guys think about Roger Ver and his alliance with Classic, why is he pushing it so hard?

Thanks for your contribution. Do you have any meeting notes or recordings?
There appears to be highly different statements coming from miners where they are trying to appease both groups. Wang chun from F2Pool the other day made a deal with core to raise the blocksize to 2MB in 2017 and he made it clear all hard forks must be at least 1 year in advance with a 95% miner consensus , which rules out Bitcoin Classic.

Bitfury on the other hand gave a quick nod of approval to classic than quickly wrote this article which contradicts Classics Principles -
https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6



Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx to be spent on payment channels or on the main chain? From what I hear the sentiment is high volume on the main chain to directly pay the miners instead of a settlement system like Bitfury and core propose.


Do we hear XT/BU/Classic proponents stressing the importance for tx fees be raised and a fee market being created? Notice how he stresses the cheap tx's will be on the sidechains and payment channels like LN , and not on the main chain like being proposed by XT/BU/Classic proponents .


Do we here this clarification from XT/BU/Classic proponents, or from Core proponents?


Could that Abrupt increase be referring to a hard fork?


This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model.
.

It's over grandpa, It's over.

 

REKT

8 minutes, thats gotta be a record!

Toomim Coin Status: REKT

Kind of like how Reddit and KnC and Slush supported XT/BIP101, until they didn't.

That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.

Good approved and validated sources confirm it.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ
My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "MinerInWorld" WeChat


Details and context being revealed ....(I look forward to more data confirming before making any judgments)

https://www.bikeji.com/t/3144
http://www.weibo.com/3884337005/De95fs0cx?from=page_1005053884337005_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime

The translation:

Yesterday, Jeff(Garzik?), a developer of Bitcoin Classic, took a flight to Beijing from New York, to attend a meeting with the Chinese Bitcoin businesses, including Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC, with the aim of gaining further support for Bitcoin Classic. When talking about Bitcoin Classic's releases, Jeff stated that a hard fork is needed for the upgrading and improvement of the source code(the original Chinese are weasel words and possibly syntactically incorrect), yet(and) without providing a clear long-term roadmap(about what lies ahead of the 2MB increase?), which led to almost universal dissatisfaction among those present, whom further expressed their withdrawal of support for Bitcoin Classic, and the need to reach a wider consensus within the community before a decision can be made.

thats the point.. having the community have the 2mb rule is just a setting that sits there doing nothing until miners are ready to move passed 1mb..

did the community cry about dangers of a 1mb block back in the day when most blocks were under 500k.. no.. they actually liked having 1mb rule as it gave some buffer for expansion without surprises

i would say no one is saying miners should start throwing out >1mb tomorrow (but i know and a few want to people want to).. im saying that its best for the users to have the setting there ready for the future. that way it wont be a shock to the system if miners did start pushing out larger blocks in 6months or 6 years or whenever..

and the debate about naferious people pushing out single transactions of 2mb to screw with miners kind of irrelevant.. simply because the same can be done now with just 1mb limit. so changing the setting does not suddenly cause any new issues or nefarious tactics to suddenly become possible.. the same nefarious tactics are available to be abused right now.

the 2mb limit should just be a buffer for users to be ready for whatever surprises miners come up with in the future.

but strangely some drama queens want to ignore the code and the reason to increase the limit. and instead troll the social eccentricities of people, not code

Hahaha 2mb rule. Where is your 2MB block? Hahahahaha

Distinction without a difference.  You either support contentious hard forks or you do not.



It seems like you don't understand ridicule's potency as a weapon.  Or you do, and are just #BUTTHURT at being ridiculed so effectively by a master of the art.

I came to Bitcoin for the code and stayed for the drama.  There is no conflict there.  Do you even antifragile, bro?  No?  Then #CRYMOAR.

You are welcome to go off and join another FOSS project that is free from "social drama and bickering."  Oh wait...

At what point will it dawn upon you that your cliched 'process concern' whining about "social drama and bickering" only adds to the social drama and bickering?