Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 17. (Read 157147 times)

there is no us. there is no we.

bitcoiners are just lonesome cowboys rushing for the XXI century's mother of all gold rush.

I haven't checked, but Fearman3001 might be available if you want to switch user names.

Franky1, the shill of all shills is trying to tell us that WE need 12 months to grasp basic concepts? You people can't even put together a coherent takeover in 18 months, and you've had endless amounts of free money and free time to throw at the situation, courtesy of your bankster paymasters no doubt.

The irony should not be lost on anyone: Franky spends every minute of the day shilling against Bitcoin, for 18 months straight, and has got precisely nowhere. You will always find Franky on bitcointalk, because it's his job. A job he is not very good at.

Exactly. This assumption that someone else can sign something in my name without my consent is idiotic. The people who were present at that 'argeement' only represented themselves, not other Core contributors, not Core, not my cat, no one else besides themselves.

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.

Greetings from the PR department (according to Franky). 

i'm right here with carlton ... waiting to fire up my blockstream hub you drooling idiot.

i dont think carlton understands that its him and his blockstream friends that are the anti-bitcoin party..

i really think its time he stops telling bitcoiners to move away, and stop telling people that blockstream altcoins/centralized hubs are the future..
because its becoming very clear he is anti-bitcoin and pro-blockstream

everyone else is pro-bitcoin and anti-blockstream.. and carlton is failing to grasp the difference.. he needs to realise he is on the wrong side of the fense.. but i think it will take him another year to wise up

Kind of amusing how the anti-Bitcoin sentiment has *ahem* developed lol

• Core supporters are now cast as the big blockers
• A small chinese pool is complaining about minutiae in a deal in which they had little bargaining power anyway

And these "developments" are causing the anti-Bitcoin shills to start gloating about some imagined victory? Am I right in thinking that you gentlemen still have almost zero hash rate and almost zero coding talent in your corner? And exactly zero users?

In nearly 18 months, you people have produced a grand sum of nothing. Quit while you're ahead?

I agree, fuck the roundtables, fuck the paper agreements, fuck the scaling shenanigans, and fuck all of you (mostly the bitching forkers tho).

Bitcoin's status quo is stronger than ever!

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.


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.

....

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.

This agreement has kept the overwhelming majority of hashing power on core and away from classic & co.

What you're suggesting is that the miners should expect nothing in return.

That's a fairly lopsided deal.

In cases of doubt it would be natural interpret it in a direction where this unbalance is evened out.

These people are not some noob programmers you can just smack down with some snarky comments.

If they see the deal broken by your party they will consider it void. Not only that, they will feel mislead and get quite cross about it.

You don't want that to happen. And, frankly, neither do I. And I'm a BIP101 fanboy!

It's a good deal. Try to work with it.

Core didn't promise shit. And to be frank, I see a growing contingent of Core supporters that would refuse to support a hard fork even if released by Core. We're fucking tired of this bullshit. As time goes on, I'm leaning towards rejecting any hard fork and retaining immutable consensus.

Those of us who believe in bitcoin because of cypherpunk ethics and its usefulness to evade state actors -- we will never, ever give in to your pathetic pandering to corporations and centralized miners. We will oppose you, always and forever.

At some point, I believe all parties here will simply need to agree to split chains. We will never achieve consensus for a hard fork on an issue like block size, which goes to the core of issues like decentralization and inclusivity, central to the idea of p2p. It's for the best. Please just fork off, and take Coinbase and Antpool with you. It's clear that we will never agree. Just stop trying to make absurd claims that 75% miner agreement means anything whatsoever (it doesn't) and just fork already.

If they mislead anyone-- though they assure me they didn't-- that's on them, no one else-- doubly so because assurances were made to other contributors that no such thing would be done when concerns were raised in advance about the ethics of trying conspiring to set network rules in closed meetings.  My prior exasperated comments were precisely because I think it's naive to think that whatever understanding there actually was at the time that it wouldn't be spun as something else-- exactly as you're doing.

As far as contributor it's true that they are-- but:  Matt's last merged commit was December 13th (6 months ago), Peter Todd's last merged commit was Jan 31st (5 months ago), Luke's was Feb 27th (4 months ago).  Valued though they are, these are not exactly the most active contributors (and to be complete, they do now all have recent pull requests open).  Their signatures were accurate in any case-- anyone can be a contributor, it doesn't imply any particular authority... but nor did the subject of the agreement require any authority. Considering that the goalposts are shifting, -- now people suggesting that core has to accept whatever they propose (a promise they never could have made), or that this proposal has to come before SW... I don't know why they'd bother with it at all now. It seems clear to me that they're getting played.

If "Classic" were to hardfork in any case, they could simply make it merged mined.  When I heard the name I initially assume that was precisely what they were going to do-- make it into a spinoff with merge mining, and apply the deceptive "classic" moniker to try to privilege it as the original thing.

I hope this kind of thing continues when mine poole operators attempt to engage in coercion tactics in what appears as an unwarranted attempt to alter governance, and therefore, lucky enough that miners are sufficiently smart to recognize that they don't want to be part of a mining poole that acts so recklessly and takes stupid and unjustifiable positions.

That would be the best outcome, make two clean hardforks (leaving untouched the legacy Bitcoin) and let free market choose. Which has been the case for all the shitcoin proposals out there.

But the thing is the belligerents forkers dont have the balls nor the talent to do so as they know they'll eat their shorts because bitcoin's value proposal doesn't thrives from progress nor from mass adoption transactionism but from trustless and apolitical immutability.



This shit has been going on for years now, and them block size maniacs keeps on bitching all around like they matter.

But again, Bitcoin no gives fuck. Sorry.

I was thinking that it would be interesting to see 2 alts in the market (I am dead serious):

SegWit and Classic.

Then see which one gets the biggest hashrate. It would be interesting I think.

Problem is how miners will be motivated to open their old asics for this, I mean probably nobody will be interested to speculate on these alts, I maybe dead wrong though!

Opinions?

These are not excuses, these are facts, facts that make you and Jihan look like very intelligent people. There was zero guarantee from Core that this implementation will be merged. This is because the people who were part of that agreement can not do anything on their own. This is not how the project works.

They actually think that they can do something about it, what a joke.

I say this every single time that I encounter such posts: You can't blame the network for your own lack of knowledge.

Correct. As it now stands, their position is negative.

Miners will leave antpool, if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation in bitcoin and ill-found destructiveness

Exactly...

Like saying let's fuck up the whole thing of bitcoin just because either a few people are having troubles figuring out fees and receiving confirmation of their transaction as quickly as they had pland and/or other people are making a lot of noise about having such troubles (which stories are likely mostly fabricated or exaggerated, by the way).

what ya waiting for captain?

Your the one who keeps arguing over a point that is largely settled... why can't just focus on positive developments and working within what you got instead of continuing on a theme that should be largely behind us.

Yeah, there will be needs to adapt in the future etc etc.. but you keep harping on some kind of idea about wanting to get larger blocks right away, and no one of importance in the bitcoin community is really persuaded by that argument.. so we do not have it... and it is working fine... we are crashing all the way into the $600s with such a supposed defect (of lacking larger blocksize limits)