Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now
This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant. 
Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 121. (Read 157137 times)
Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable." Not even a little bit!
It's so unreasonable that iCE doesn't even have to furiously type away against it.
but it is stupidly simple enough to suck in the punters .... hence the typing.
The punters that run PH/s?
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable." Not even a little bit!
It's so unreasonable that iCE doesn't even have to furiously type away against it.
but it is stupidly simple enough to suck in the punters .... hence the typing.
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable." Not even a little bit!
It's so unreasonable that iCE doesn't even have to furiously type away against it.
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable." Not even a little bit!
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
I am buying validated/active accounts for github, bitcoinclassic.consider.it, and bitcoinclassic.com. PM offers and help my Sybil (counter)attack!
Time to infiltrate Camp_Classic and spread mayhem by loudly supporting the less popular side of their most controversial issues.
wheels falling off the Classic wagon already? put it up on the free market to decide
HaoBTC will continue to increase hashrate, support Bitcoin and support block size increase.
By Wu Gang
We support block size increase. The most ideal would be that the increase will be realised via the Bitcoin-core. We will also support Bitcoin-classic, if it proves to be the most agreed-upon. As long as a proposal is reasonable and reliable, we will give it our support.
By Wu Gang
We support block size increase. The most ideal would be that the increase will be realised via the Bitcoin-core. We will also support Bitcoin-classic, if it proves to be the most agreed-upon. As long as a proposal is reasonable and reliable, we will give it our support.
Honey moon over?
so you have admitted defeat,
i have already got the explanations FROM MANY SOURCES and now you have proven that you lack the understanding because you have not done the research and cannot explain it...
kind of hypocritical, saying you love something without understanding it.. and then insulting others who do understand it but hate it... by saying they dont understand
Yes, many other sources who improperly understood it like yourself. SegWit does not harm the security model at all. This has nothing to do with defeat; I'm not just going to waste my time on ypu(nor do I "love" the proposal as you claim). Now you're insulting me even though we have not insulted you nor called you a troll. We've told you several times to ask the developers for answers to your exact questions because they do not have to do additional research in order to answer them. Stop being off-topic and do what we've told you, or stop complaining about SegWit. i have already got the explanations FROM MANY SOURCES and now you have proven that you lack the understanding because you have not done the research and cannot explain it...
kind of hypocritical, saying you love something without understanding it.. and then insulting others who do understand it but hate it... by saying they dont understand
wheels falling off the Classic wagon already? put it up on the free market to decide
The ecosystem is a mess. It would be rather hilarious and sad at the same time if everyone that worked on Core refused to even touch Classic. Who would be doing the coding, Garzik or Andresen, or even better Rizun? 
Update: Rewritten some part of the posts. Again you seem to ignore our suggestions in addition to breaking the forum rules.
Do I look like your professor? Unless you're willing to pay me to answer weird questions (which require extensive research) then I'm not going to waste my time. Your understanding is flawed and that is a fact. We've already told you where you should go and ask for an explanation:
so you have admitted defeat,
i have already got the explanations FROM MANY SOURCES and now you have proven that you lack the understanding because you have not done the research and cannot explain it...
kind of hypocritical, saying you love something without understanding it.. and then insulting others who do understand it but hate it... by saying they dont understand
so continue not wasting your time doing research. and continue trolling and insulting others who have researched.
have a nice day
EDIT (seems someone doesnt like me pointing out that i done research so deletes my post pointing it out)
i will make clear
I.. (me, human-being using the username franky1)
have .. (task done, activity accomplished, questions asked)
already..(in the past completed, not a future plan yet to achieve)
spoke to devs (not singular, but multiple.. to get a full and proper opinion to allow me to weed out the 'utopian' dream of single minds compared to the reality of features based on multiple explanations)
but i do find it funny that you are so opinionated about something you have admitted that you have not researched and then require payment just to research..
but if you want to call the dev's also wrong.. then ill just leave you to live in the uninformed cave
have a nice day
wheels falling off the Classic wagon already? put it up on the free market to decide
i now await lauda's detailed and technical description of how segwit actually works
-snip-
Do I look like your professor? Unless you're willing to pay me to answer weird questions (which require extensive research) then I'm not going to waste my time. Your understanding is flawed and that is a fact. We've already told you where you should go and ask for an explanation:-snip-
Walls of the bandwagon crumbling already
. Please add this to the OP. Quote
To do that we must first break the monopoly/centrally planned economy/committee of core by moving to classic.
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688395414525972480Brian leading the charge in the takeover attempt. Using lying propagandist language like centrally planned/committee, while the plan is simply to increase his control and influence.
Yet his business gets promoted by bitcoin.org. It does not deserve to be there. He is a threat to Bitcoin.
Brian, a threat to Bitcoin? In his Pointy-Headed CEO dreams!
More like a threat to social injustice. LOL.
^Justus R is the libertarian that famously declared "Anyone who isn’t actively working to expand and empower the informal economy is wasting their time" in his "Only the Black Markets Matter" essay.
Can't wait to see how he gets along with the regulation loving, jackboot licking, left-wing statist SJWs of the 'let's stop Bitcoin criminals' Blockchain Alliance!
Dis gon be gud....
some strange bedfellows this episode in technical exploration has made ... gonna be some serious lulzmilk flowing from the Classic dairy factory, and plenty of derivative humour too.
Quote
To do that we must first break the monopoly/centrally planned economy/committee of core by moving to classic.
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688395414525972480Brian leading the charge in the takeover attempt. Using lying propagandist language like centrally planned/committee, while the plan is simply to increase his control and influence.
Yet his business gets promoted by bitcoin.org. It does not deserve to be there. He is a threat to Bitcoin.
Brian, a threat to Bitcoin? In his Pointy-Headed CEO dreams!
More like a threat to social injustice. LOL.
^Justus R is the libertarian that famously declared "Anyone who isn’t actively working to expand and empower the informal economy is wasting their time" in his "Only the Black Markets Matter" essay.
Can't wait to see how he gets along with the regulation loving, jackboot licking, left-wing statist SJWs of the 'let's stop Bitcoin criminals' Blockchain Alliance!
Dis gon be gud....
Quote
To do that we must first break the monopoly/centrally planned economy/committee of core by moving to classic.
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688395414525972480Brian leading the charge in the takeover attempt. Using lying propagandist language like centrally planned/committee, while the plan is simply to increase his control and influence.
Yet his business gets promoted by bitcoin.org. It does not deserve to be there. He is a threat to Bitcoin.
I've been following the discussion on reddit, and I see erik voorhes all over the place pointing out how segwit is "too complex" compared to a 2mb hard fork. It seems he's just trying to find excuses to hard fork:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/418sza/promotion_of_client_software_which_attempts_to/cz0nz4y
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/418sza/promotion_of_client_software_which_attempts_to/cz0nz4y
Segwit Softfork to 2mb >>>> hardfork to 2mb.
Even if its not the case (it can be debated) the details are not that important. Who cares if we do segwit through hardfork or softfork in grand scheme of things (which is what Gavin was concern trolling about).
Insignificant differences like this do not justify the chaos created in trying to have hard fork cirumventing all prior development processes and without consensus. This will mean dolldrums for bitcoin price over the next year.
Instead we could all unite under the roadmap which is certainly good enough. This would bring stability and the Bitcoin ecosystem can continue to move forward.
This is just a power grab backed by developers and companies from blockchain alliance trying to decrease the influence of cypherpunks.
Turing bitcoin into paypal 2.0 might be good for coinbase which needs to be on the good side of regulators, but its not good for Bitcoin users and its price. It lowers bitcoins potential.
SAY NO TO BLOCKCHAIN ALLIANCE TAKING OVER BITCOIN
Even if its not the case (it can be debated) the details are not that important. Who cares if we do segwit through hardfork or softfork in grand scheme of things (which is what Gavin was concern trolling about).
Insignificant differences like this do not justify the chaos created in trying to have hard fork cirumventing all prior development processes and without consensus. This will mean dolldrums for bitcoin price over the next year.
Instead we could all unite under the roadmap which is certainly good enough. This would bring stability and the Bitcoin ecosystem can continue to move forward.
This is just a power grab backed by developers and companies from blockchain alliance trying to decrease the influence of cypherpunks.
Turing bitcoin into paypal 2.0 might be good for coinbase which needs to be on the good side of regulators, but its not good for Bitcoin users and its price. It lowers bitcoins potential.
SAY NO TO BLOCKCHAIN ALLIANCE TAKING OVER BITCOIN
Jump to: