ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 20.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: adamstgBit on May 26, 2016, 12:26:45 PM

...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one.

Maybe someone but that doesn't mean we should fork Bitcoin.
That's like a bank CEO saying:
"Since there are a few people that are too stupid to use ATM's we should have assistants next to every ATM"

Just use a higher than recommended fee if the transaction is urgent.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 12:15:32 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on May 26, 2016, 11:31:39 AM

... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...

all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.

on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.

also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy!

And why do we need micro payments on the blockchain? They can use payment channels for that. There is no need to bloat the blockchain for that.
TX fees are not unpredictable. I have sent hundreds of transactions with only 0.00001 as fee. That's a few cents.

...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: adamstgBit on May 26, 2016, 11:31:39 AM

... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...

all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.

on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.

also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy!

And why do we need micro payments on the blockchain? You can use payment channels for that. There is no need to bloat the blockchain for that.
TX fees are not unpredictable. I have sent hundreds of transactions with a fee of around 0.00001. That's a few cents.

Quote from: chopstick on May 26, 2016, 11:58:41 AM

What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.

There is no reason to tell someone who disagrees with you to go use another coin. That is incredibly immature and divisive... I can only conclude that this community is made up of a mixture of zealots who want to prove themselves right at all costs and asinine morons. Or so it seems from the last 20 pages of this thread or so.

The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.

Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.

I don't want to kick anyone out of Bitcoin but I suggest you should start looking into alt coins if you want to make micro transactions on the blockchain.
Why should you use Bitcoin if you don't like it?

chopstick

legendary

Activity: 992

Merit: 1000

What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.

There is no reason to tell someone who disagrees with you to go use another coin. That is incredibly immature and divisive... I can only conclude that this community is made up of a mixture of zealots who want to prove themselves right at all costs and asinine morons. Or so it seems from the last 20 pages of this thread or so.

The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.

Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 11:22:10 AM

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 09:49:44 AM

The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.

Well isn't this happening? Your big block pals are now crying that they cannot afford to send transactions.
They are under the impression that everything should be free. Kinda reminds me of the Bernie bots.

... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...

all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.

on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.

also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy!

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 09:49:44 AM

The only reason you could possibly think that is that your picture of us bigblockers is formed by mischaracterization of what we actually want. Instead of getting your picture of bigblockers' motivations and desires from your fellow smallblockers, you might want to read what we bigblockers are actually saying.

Well I apologize for assuming that "big blocker" meant that you support bigger blocks?

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 09:49:44 AM

The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.

Well isn't this happening? Your big block pals are now crying that they cannot afford to send transactions.
They are under the impression that everything should be free. Kinda reminds me of the Bernie bots.

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 10:00:01 AM

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 07:13:35 AM

How is SegWit bloating Bitcoin?

'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, but also the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data.

The sum of the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, plus the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

Are you saying that SegWit will be a bigger bump than 2MB blocksize increase and therefore bloat the chain?
So you are basically admitting that bigger blocks will bloat the blockchain?

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: hdbuck on May 26, 2016, 10:46:50 AM

just fork off

Happily! Just waiting on 75% for a bigblock implementation...

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 10:00:01 AM

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch[/size]

just fork off and be done with your forkbackloop.

btcusury

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 260

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 09:13:46 AM

Quote from: btcusury on May 26, 2016, 09:05:58 AM

Quote from: Cryddit on May 25, 2016, 07:05:40 PM

At about this time I gave up on the community and sold my coins. If the people driving the decision were functional and worked together, or even if they had been discussing the problem in good faith, I would still be a believer even if block size didn't immediately increase.

You are not taking into consideration the idea that there are actors who actually are trying to destroy Bitcoin. Consider that possibility, and then reevaluate everything, is what I would suggest you do.

Well these actors have left the project. (Mike Hearn & Co)

Yes, they all just gave up, and now Bitcoin is free to progress unimpeded towards undoing thousands of years of central control over money.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 07:13:35 AM

How is SegWit bloating Bitcoin?

'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, but also the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data.

The sum of the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, plus the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 06:26:08 AM

Why are you big blockers still in Bitcoin?
I thought the majority of "big blockers" now regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment and willing to let go of it and move on to alt coins like Ethereum?

The only reason you could possibly think that is that your picture of us bigblockers is formed by mischaracterization of what we actually want. Instead of getting your picture of bigblockers' motivations and desires from your fellow smallblockers, you might want to read what we bigblockers are actually saying.

Quote

What does Bitcoin provide that Ethereum doesn't?

The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.

Quote

I regard Bitcoin as the gold of crypto and the fact that it has stayed resilient against recent attacks from corporations and governments proves that it's still "the gold of crypto".
But that's not the opinion of a "big blocker"...

"There you go again" - RR

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Carlton Banks on May 26, 2016, 03:59:17 AM

2MB2MB2MB lobbyists:

How long do you guys need? It's been over 12 months since Gavin started this war of words, and you're still running on words.

I'm not "running on words". I'm running BU.

Quote

18 months maybe? Do you need 2 years?

Long as it takes, my friend.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 09:13:46 AM

Quote from: btcusury on May 26, 2016, 09:05:58 AM

Quote from: Cryddit on May 25, 2016, 07:05:40 PM

At about this time I gave up on the community and sold my coins. If the people driving the decision were functional and worked together, or even if they had been discussing the problem in good faith, I would still be a believer even if block size didn't immediately increase.

You are not taking into consideration the idea that there are actors who actually are trying to destroy Bitcoin. Consider that possibility, and then reevaluate everything, is what I would suggest you do.

Well these actors have left the project. (Mike Hearn & Co)

gavin is still around. so is all the whining XT/classic wannabes.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: btcusury on May 26, 2016, 09:05:58 AM

Quote from: Cryddit on May 25, 2016, 07:05:40 PM

At about this time I gave up on the community and sold my coins. If the people driving the decision were functional and worked together, or even if they had been discussing the problem in good faith, I would still be a believer even if block size didn't immediately increase.

You are not taking into consideration the idea that there are actors who actually are trying to destroy Bitcoin. Consider that possibility, and then reevaluate everything, is what I would suggest you do.

Well these actors have left the project. (Mike Hearn & Co)

btcusury

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 260

Quote from: Cryddit on May 25, 2016, 07:05:40 PM

At about this time I gave up on the community and sold my coins. If the people driving the decision were functional and worked together, or even if they had been discussing the problem in good faith, I would still be a believer even if block size didn't immediately increase.

You are not taking into consideration the idea that there are actors who actually are trying to destroy Bitcoin. Consider that possibility, and then reevaluate everything, is what I would suggest you do.

leemar

full member

Activity: 193

Merit: 100

Quote

And even if we did, it would be futile, since neither devs nor miners can force users to adopt it.
It is literally technically impossible for miners to activate a HF period.

This is incorrect, as is the article on the first page of the thread quoted in Adam’s tweet.

That two of the most influential technical people in Bitcoin are saying this is a bit worrying.

All that matters is the longest chain and to equate those that can propagate blocks with those that can build on the blockchain is wrong. If we take the scenario in the article where I add the moniker "42" to the block header and convince all non mining nodes to do the same. The article goes on to say …

" The work that the miners would put into creating non-42-bearing blocks would be wasted, and their compensation, in Bitcoins, on a blockchain that none of us accept, would be worthless. New miners would emerge who place the magic number on every block."

The work would not be useless. Just because the number of nodes building the chain goes down from thousands relaying block to dozens building blocks doesn’t mean a new bitcoin blockchain emerges. And who the F*ck is "us" we don't matter only hashing power matters, that's the whole point.

He goes on to say.....

“New miners emerge” .... really! With what hashing power?

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: franky1 on May 26, 2016, 06:34:29 AM

who want 5.7mb blocks

I guess you think if you just keep screaming your lies louder and louder people will finally believe you? Pure "Classic".

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Fatman3001 on May 26, 2016, 07:36:41 AM

Quote from: hv_ on May 26, 2016, 07:21:59 AM

I try to unify back - if there is incoherence needed - fine. Just try to brake the ice...

Don't mind him. He's just pushing crap so he can short Bitcoin to its grave.

Funny thing is: all the shill-hunters thinks he's on their team.

Yeah - you always have to fight with the nasty front side dog before you can deliver the post ...

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1013

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: hv_ on May 26, 2016, 07:21:59 AM

I try to unify back - if there is incoherence needed - fine. Just try to brake the ice...

Don't mind him. He's just pushing crap so he can short Bitcoin to its grave.

Funny thing is: all the shill-hunters thinks he's on their team.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: hdbuck on May 26, 2016, 07:19:43 AM

Quote from: hv_ on May 26, 2016, 07:15:37 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on May 26, 2016, 07:11:09 AM

Quote from: franky1 on May 26, 2016, 06:34:29 AM

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 06:26:08 AM

Why are you big blockers still in Bitcoin?
I thought the majority of "big blockers" now regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment and willing to let go of it and move on to alt coins like Ethereum?
What does Bitcoin provide that Ethereum doesn't?

I regard Bitcoin as the gold of crypto and the fact that it has stayed resilient against recent attacks from corporations and governments proves that it's still "the gold of crypto".
But that's not the opinion of a "big blocker"...

fully agree with you.. them bigblockers who love blockstream and want 5.7mb blocks. have lost faith in bitcoin.
they complain it cant scale
they say the only solution is to move to different layers and sidechains(altcoins).
they argue and say anything that is part of the open community is bad because they only want one business to destroy bitcoin now.

if they really want to have blockstream control. maybe they should just move over to "liquid" and play with them altcoins, pretending its bitcoin but faster..

they really need to just admit that they want to bloat bitcoin so their favorite altcoin can take the bitcoin fame..

this is so fucked up. man you need to get yourself checked for psychological disorders.

Yes it is and every small blocker should pay now the average needed btc fee for any new post on this topic.

Have fun to get it calced correctly :-)

you n00bs are so incoherent its just pitiful. fork off already.

I try to unify back - if there is incoherence needed - fine. Just try to brake the ice...

Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 20. (Read 157147 times)