Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 19. (Read 157147 times)

^
 
more proof blockstreamers want people to stop using bitcoin..

Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.  The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into rbtc to circlejerk yourselves the better.

On the Hearnia Scale of Whiny Ragequitting, I'd rate your blubbering very low.

Not very creative, not any new material, just the same old boring litany using the same old "Toxic Sensor Ships" rhetoric.

If you don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides then take a cue from Cryddit.  IE, stop whining, man up, and go use another socioeconomic majority's alternative Nakamoto Consensus associated coin/token.

They updated it right?

blockstreamers problem with HF:
'the decentralized node count will decrease

blockstreamers solution:
create a softwork that makes old nodes no longer full validators.
with those who do upgrade. offer pruned mode to make them no longer fully validate/archive data
with those who do upgrade, but dont prune. offer no witness mode to make them no longer fully validate/archive data
for those who do upgrade but dont prune or remove witness.  offer them sidechains and hubs to no longer care about bitcoins blockchain, and instead be nodes for other network layers.
---hypocrits

blockstreamers problem with HF:
the blocks will be bigger

blockstreamers solution:
create a softwork that pretends its still 1mb hard limit but the actual data increases, then later increase the hard limit at some random date based on the the angle of earth in relation to the sun (summer).
add new features to bloat up each transaction average such as confidential transactions.
pretend that their 5.7mb potential blocks next year are still the 'small blocker plan' (5.7mb good.. 2mb/4mb bad)
---hypocrits

blockstreamers problem with HF:
the code may be wrote by people in the bitcoin space but there is a corporate agenda behind it

blockstreamers solution:
use bitcoin coders but have corporate backing to move people away from bitcoin in a multitude of ways, in preference for their sidechains and hubs
---hypocrits

note:
any blockstreamer that replies with no real statistical data, information about real bloat of their 'small block' false pretense. and simply replies with insults are just angry people that have come to the realization they have been duped by blockstream, but dont want to admit they have walked down the wrong road. and so will double-down on their old beliefs and try to stay strong, and just vent their frustrations out on those that have made them come to that realization.

and those that try to contradict my note to say that they have not come to that realization, and instead they are still strong blockstream believers.. well to them i will just give them time to sit back and think about it. and let them come to the realization at a later date. to atleast make them feel that they will come to the realization in their own time as if its their own idea. then they will be less hostile once it happens

Hey, in your deepest core you are a softie!
Get you a saucage
 

Yeah. STF(ork)U or GT(fork)O.

It's been pretty much the hardforkers' only choices for more than 3 years now.



 

... And you re still barking for the separation.  What a shame...

to the blockstream(offchain/altcoin) shills: think about how hypocritical you are

Pardon?

to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.

Maybe Excellion could do it?

Samson must feel somewhat weird having Core crap all over the "HK agreement" he worked so hard on. He even spent the intervening months relentlessly ball cupping them, embarrassing...

I/we should email antpool thanking them...

^^^ Hey Core! Where's your glass beads now?

Would like to have that account verified though. Someone should poke Jihan on twitter.

Thank goodness at least one of these miners has [some semblance of] a spine... Time to start talking about PoW changes again?

So then you cede the point that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands? Excellent! Who else here agrees with Lauda on this point?

Just no. The statement you made -- which I was obviously replying to -- was thus: