Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 2. (Read 157066 times)

I think we'll see in the coming years that BSV simply isn't sustainable.

It's funny that you mention "economic incentives." A deflationary supply with no fee pressure? 1 TB block sizes in the next 2 years? How is that supposed to incentivize miners to secure the chain? It sounds ludicrous.

Economic incentives, usability and security level will decide that.

On what possible basis?  BSV has ~650 nodes.  LN has ~6500 nodes.  It's pretty clear which one the market prefers.

Stable, simple and legal impl of the white paper will win all markets.

I can only see BSV being the true and acceptable Bitcoin.

What? you don't read this thread? (the comment he was referring to was a few pages back)-- I guess it's interesting to know that Coinbase's executives are reading this thread.

More deceptive garbage-- in particular, it makes it sound like I wasn't referring to my own freeking employees there, or that my flip comment had something to do with working with miners on compromise when instead I explicitly pointed out it was because they went off to hold a secret meeting and let themselves get coerced (literally locked in a room until 3-4am) into an agreement which-- in the sense it was understood-- was physically impossible for them to comply with (because none of them have the authority to control what core releases or what the network runs)... and they did so after explicitly promising other people-- concerned about the ethics of meeting in secret to collude with miners-- that they go only to learn and share information and not make agreements. I don't feel any hesitation in calling that a foolish move. (and not just in hindsight, I warned about this kind of outcome in advance)

But while we're on the subject of foolish moves, whats the deal with coinbase continually insulting bitcoin technology and antagonizing the people whom are actually working on it?  They contribute _NOTHING_ to the technology, they don't even contribute to maintaining their beloved "classic".  I guess they might be happier with Ethereum, since it's a far more centralized system they'll know exactly who to lobby to get whatever they want without putting in any effort themselves...  But, considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.

lmao, quoting this dipshit for posterity. or say one month heh.

ffs hopeless squeaking prick. fuck you.

How is it hypocrisy if they believe different solutions regarding block size should be associated with a particular project?

Just curious

Is it true the Chinese are launching Toomincoin?

well the code changes are simple. but the ultimate "idea" is that its not going to be a bitcoin-core release. but code on luke Jr's personal github.
literally making it an independent non-core release just like BU, XT, classic and the several other non-core implementations.

so the overall decision is, accept the harkfork because luke is more trusted "independent" coder.. or.. vilify luke the same way as the other non-core implementations

Likely I will need to accept your representations regarding some to of these technicalities, but still my point stands that we would need to see the code that is released before your earlier propositions would even come into play.  

Accordingly, none of the individual developers can bind core, but yeah, they are free to make various code proposals, and whether consensus can be achieved regarding code language may suggest what reasonable next steps would be taken.  Even the author of a code could chose to amend his code if others suggest that there are problems with the code, so suggesting that Luke Jr would be insisting upon either a hard fork or an alt coin spin, seems to be considerably premature.

In fact, developers may have fairly intense disagreements regarding what are the problems, if there are problems and the importance of various proposed solutions, so even if one developer takes a fairly strong position concerning what he perceives to be a problem, he may also change his mind regarding the degree or extent of the problem and whether the proposed solution is a reasonable measure in respect to the problem.

So, it makes little sense to me, to attempt to lock in positions, and even describe hostilities and combativeness between developers when the assessments about problems and solutions are works in progress, and code proposition (by Luke Jr.) has not even been released yet.  He could also release his code with a lot of passion and advocacy for such code or he could release it without taking a strong stance in regards to his beliefs regarding the code as a one size fits all solution.