Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 16. (Read 157135 times)
So the answer to my two questions is a clear no. Nothing surprising for people supporting Classic. Good luck next time.
i'm done arguing.
good day to you all.
good day to you all.
its hopeless, you will forever believe 8MB blocks would break bitcoin.
They would. Even a 2 MB block size limit could, but that's what the 'hacky workaround' with those limitations is all about. It is you who does not know things, and it is you who is being fed lies. Do you even know what the difference between linear and quadratic scaling means? Have you even heard of the big O? The questions are: Is it optimal? Is it necessary? Is it worth risking of contentious hard fork over? The answer is a resounding "No" on all fronts.
I concur. bitcoin 0.1.0 was deemed "production-ready" by satoshi.
and he subscribed to the same damn make blocks bigger and bigger scaling vision.
does that make him an idiot?
and he subscribed to the same damn make blocks bigger and bigger scaling vision.
does that make him an idiot?
Firstly, there was no money on the line back then. We have a $7 billion market cap to consider. Secondly, that would have been purely theoretical given that bitcoin had such low adoption and transaction volume and had no worries of running into scalability walls for the foreseeable future. Thirdly, Satoshi isn't here to defend himself from your (mis?) characterization of his words, nor to clarify in the context of actual technological and infrastructural improvements in regards to latencies and bandwidth shortcomings since his disappearance. Fourthly, stop appealing to authority. You're building a strawman by suggesting that Satoshi's actions are in any way comparable to Gavin's, then knocking it down by appealing to Satoshi's authority. It's a pathetic, dishonest approach to debate. Just stop it.
XT failed because poeple didnt like the idea that nodes on the network would eventually cost 1000's of dollars yearly to run should the network grow to visa like TX/sec, not because it was technically flawed. they see increased cost to nodes as having a centralizing effect. they are WRONG, but thats just my opinion... and few subscribe to it.
8MB was technically flawed to begin with. Refer to the links posted above.
you small blockers like to pretend everything would come to a grinding halt if blocks were huge, ( some of you would say 2MB is "technically impossible") but thats not true, it just makes running a node more expensive
Who is saying 2MB is technically impossible? One could just be sloppy like Gavin -- put a limit on sig ops instead of fixing quadratic scaling limitations, do no risk analysis whatsoever, and commit buggy/untested code into your releases.
The questions are: Is it optimal? Is it necessary? Is it worth risking of contentious hard fork over? The answer is a resounding "No" on all fronts.
bitcoin 0.1.0 was deemed "production-ready" by satoshi.
and he subscribed to the same damn make blocks bigger and bigger scaling vision.
does that make him an idiot?
XT failed because poeple didnt like the idea that nodes on the network would eventually cost 1000's of dollars yearly to run should the network grow to visa like TX/sec, not because it was technically flawed. they see increased cost to nodes as having a centralizing effect. they are WRONG, but thats just my opinion... and few subscribe to it.
you small blockers like to pretend everything would come to a grinding halt if blocks were huge, ( some of you would say 2MB is "technically impossible") but thats not true, it just makes running a node more expensive
and he subscribed to the same damn make blocks bigger and bigger scaling vision.
does that make him an idiot?
XT failed because poeple didnt like the idea that nodes on the network would eventually cost 1000's of dollars yearly to run should the network grow to visa like TX/sec, not because it was technically flawed. they see increased cost to nodes as having a centralizing effect. they are WRONG, but thats just my opinion... and few subscribe to it.
you small blockers like to pretend everything would come to a grinding halt if blocks were huge, ( some of you would say 2MB is "technically impossible") but thats not true, it just makes running a node more expensive
gavin's opinion is just as valid as maxwel's
No. Gavin's opinion is worth much less than damn near everyone's.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4kmum6/i_keep_reading_people_say_bitcoin_development_is/d3gnvtw
Quote
[–]Mentor77 -7 points 3 days ago
And we're supposed to prefer your "release now, test later" approach? https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/138#issuecomment-194675548
You lost the right to talk about "priorities" when you released XT as a production-ready client in the face of all technical knowledge regarding 8MB-->8GB block size. Even jtoomim contradicted that idiocy: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ygo96/blocksize_consensus_census/cye0bmt
So did the IC3 study: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14381215
Basing BIP 101 on Moore's Law (completely unscientific, firstly, and secondly, it is already failing where applied as an industry standard) -- you lost all credibility. The Craig Wright fiasco was fuel to that fire. Go home, Gavin.
And we're supposed to prefer your "release now, test later" approach? https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/138#issuecomment-194675548
You lost the right to talk about "priorities" when you released XT as a production-ready client in the face of all technical knowledge regarding 8MB-->8GB block size. Even jtoomim contradicted that idiocy: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ygo96/blocksize_consensus_census/cye0bmt
So did the IC3 study: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14381215
Basing BIP 101 on Moore's Law (completely unscientific, firstly, and secondly, it is already failing where applied as an industry standard) -- you lost all credibility. The Craig Wright fiasco was fuel to that fire. Go home, Gavin.
I'd co-sign. Gavin is an embarrassment and a snake in the grass.
Oops. There goes ~75% of Classic's hash rate.
KNC miner, dear Classic supporters, have been REKT. Bankruptcy.
http://swedishstartupspace.com/2016/05/27/knc-miner-declares-bankruptcy-chinese-competition-too-tough/
-snip-
Tl;dr: My current normal transactions are considered 'attack-only' transactions and would be disallowed. I thought nobody was able to control my use of Bitcoin? Why not use his initial 20 MB block limit proposal with even more limitations? 
gavin's opinion is just as valid as maxwel's
And C.W. is Satoshi. doesn't matter which way we go.
what matters is how we get there.
That statement doesn't even make sense. Did you get that from some inspirational quote? what matters is how we get there.
2MB is not a technological limit
we understand the trade offs...
If 2 MB was so 'safe', then Gavin would have not added all those limitations in his proposal. Just saying.we understand the trade offs...
the devs job is to present us with as many viable and safe impl / options
2MB is not a good idea without some rules coded with it. we can't have a 2MB block that includes a insane TX that will take minutes to validate.
but devs can code 2MB safely, like gavin did.
talk about the pros and cons.
and then ultimately let the network make the decision.
IMO as it stands devs have too much power.
we give them to much power.
their opinions matter sure.
but we shouldn't be letting 1 group of devs call all the shots.
gavin's opinion is just as valid as maxwel's
doesn't matter which way we go.
what matters is how we get there.
2MB is not a technological limit
we understand the trade offs...
If 2 MB was so 'safe', then Gavin would have not added all those limitations in his proposal. Just saying. we understand the trade offs...
IMO devs should have 0 say, they give options and opinions and "the poeple" decide on the way forward, using nakamoto consensus.
You mean, the people without any relevant knowledge should tell your engineers what to do? Oh, I didn't realize that those people understood the technological limits better than the engineers. Nice to know!2MB is not a technological limit
we understand the trade offs...
IMO devs should have 0 say, they give options and opinions and "the poeple" decide on the way forward, using nakamoto consensus.
You mean, the people without any relevant knowledge should tell your engineers what to do? Oh, I didn't realize that those people understood the technological limits better than the engineers. Nice to know! what if, miners leave core if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation?
Are you trying to imply that the miners should decide on the 'way forward'? IMO devs should have 0 say, they give options and opinions and "the poeple" decide on the way forward, using nakamoto consensus.
The market rallied because of ant pools independent thinking demonstrated that bitcoin works!
Bullshit. Antpool's reaction is negative at best. They need to think before they act because the might end up losing their miners.what if, miners leave core if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation?
Are you trying to imply that the miners should decide on the 'way forward'? -snip-
The HK meeting happened. The way Core deals with it will influence the success of Segwit and maybe even Core itself. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Core does not have to do anything. The people who signed the HK meeting agreed to prepare a proposal and code for a HF. That's it. The HK meeting happened. The way Core deals with it will influence the success of Segwit and maybe even Core itself. Why is this so difficult to understand?
You do understand how an agreement or a contract works, don't you?
Your buddies apparently signed on behalf of Core (it doesn't matter how you feel about it, they did) . The miners signed on behalf of their share of the mining industry.
You do understand how open source projects work, don't you? WTF gives a few guys the sole authority to dictate what goes into a release? They said they would write the code -- that's all they can do. Feel free to link me to something from the signers that suggests otherwise. Your buddies apparently signed on behalf of Core (it doesn't matter how you feel about it, they did) . The miners signed on behalf of their share of the mining industry.
I disagree. Fuck this deal, and fuck Antpool. He can go ahead and block Segwit implementation all he wants -- it's only big blockers that are crying for a capacity increase, anyway. And in that case, no one can blame Core for "stagnating development" given how many doors Segwit opens for scalability, privacy and new features.
Exactly. Some question how long it would take for Segwit to be adopted and actually bringing the 'capacity' increase. I find it very simple: If you want the capacity increase, you adopt it. Else you don't want the capacity increase. Classic supporters have tried just about any nonsense argument against it. i'm right here with carlton ... waiting to fire up my blockstream hub you drooling idiot.
Greetings from the PR department (according to Franky). Damn, you guys are slow.
The HK meeting happened. The way Core deals with it will influence the success of Segwit and maybe even Core itself. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Thus far it has removed the "threat" of Classic taking over. Surely this has benefited Core and those who prefer their take on things?
Core has been served a solution on a silver platter. To push that away now would be unwise.
Core needs to continuously make sure that vital parts of the ecosystem are assured that their business models won't be harmed simply due to intransigence.
If you really think Bitcoin is just another open source project, then you're more naive than I thought.
there is no us. there is no we.
bitcoiners are just lonesome cowboys rushing for the XXI century's mother of all gold rush.
bitcoiners are just lonesome cowboys rushing for the XXI century's mother of all gold rush.
Nice analogy. The way I see it, this gold rush is gonna be spectacular.
watch a new impl come from this
a 2MB chain with a simple fix for TX malleability.
Core #R3KT
a 2MB chain with a simple fix for TX malleability.
Core #R3KT
The market rallied because of ant pools independent thinking demonstrated that bitcoin works!
Everyone should make their own judgement, thus a complex solution like segwit will never get enough consensus in any meaningful time, simply because most of the actors are not capable of understanding it and they only trust their own judgement
Everyone should make their own judgement, thus a complex solution like segwit will never get enough consensus in any meaningful time, simply because most of the actors are not capable of understanding it and they only trust their own judgement
they will code it in, or else.
or else what?
we don't code for terrorists.
Miners will leave antpool, if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation in bitcoin and ill-found destructiveness
what if, miners leave core if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation?
Jump to: