Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 23. (Read 157147 times)

How'd you cash out your swag?

You guys, you're climbing the mirrors trying to justify the choices of a -single- company (private and sponsored by privates), at the expense of a -whole- communities that need a clean and clear scalability.

sigh.

I don't even know why I'm responding here.  People's minds are clearly made up, and people's lines are clearly drawn.

Full disclosure.  I yelled pretty loudly last year that I thought the block size needed to be raised.  Some agreed; others didn't.  That's okay.  It's not a decision for one person, whatever I think of the quality of my assessment.

I watched blocks start filling up, and on some days there was a very large backlog of transactions.  People were still arguing about the block size increase.  

The camps started to regard each other as enemies and accuse each other of trying to destroy Bitcoin.  Still no block size increase.  Arguments only growing hotter.

People started to openly threaten each other, with schemes to deliberately subvert consensus and plans to engage in deliberate double spends and other scamming behavior held over one another as threats.

Some asshat started blowing something like $60G per week (unless it was a miner - in which case they may or may not have broken even on the increased fees that legitimate transactions were paying) just to stuff the block chain - either because of an enormous financial need to influence the block size decision, or because hey, if we can make them compete with each other more for the fixed amount of space available, it's profitable.   Community could have had any number of constructive responses but instead just started howling and blaming each other.

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.  But that's not what happened, and I've seen too many other cryptocurrency ideas die horrible deaths.  Digicash, Ecash, E-gold, Beenz, etc...  All kinds of things that existed before the Nakamoto Consensus Protocol was invented, showed up and died.  Most of the centralized or owned ones wound up in court.  The few "decentralized" schemes (which still required a central authority to control userIDs because they were focused on reavealing a userID if AND ONLY IF that user attempted a double spend), died of non-participation as people didn't bother dealing with a gatekeeper.  And a couple of other systems that might have succeeded, died of toxic communities and an inability to work together to solve problems.  IE, of exactly what is happening here.

This one got further than any of the others, and a lot of non-cryptography people have heard of it where most never heard of the previous ones.   So writing it off was a real shame.  But I have not recently seen any reason to believe this community is going to start working together to reach any consensus, and in the absence of any willingness to try, it's simply a poor investment.  And the technical problem with scale is real.  I haven't seen any worthwhile approach to dealing with it - not the one I suggested nor any of the others.  

So...  I'm out.  And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I stand by my earlier comment.  You have not really added anything to this discussion in your latest post.  There are various stages of development and bitcoin is in a great place, even if there happens to be some outside developments, off chain transactions and sometimes even incoherent developments.  Part of the brilliance of decentralization is that people and businesses are free to innovate and experiment in a large number of ways that may directly or indirectly complement or fit into bitcoin.  Nonetheless, within the variety of creativeness and developments around bitcoin, there are some developers who are either completely attempting to ignore bitcoin or to engage in a variety of conduct that attempts to undermine bitcoin - even during times in which there could be bitcoin innovations and investments that they could make into bitcoin that would potentially benefit themselves and their business while making the bitcoin infrastructure stronger.

Not worshiping anyone.  We were only discussing a situation in which it appears that on an individual level various venture capitalists would have probably made much more money to buy bitcoins directly rather than investing in a bitcoin business.  Yeah, sure I understand the situation is much more complicated in that, so it doesn't really seem necessary to read more into what I was saying and/or to attempt to parse further regarding my fairly superficial comment.

"confidential transactions" is a future feature proposed for bitcoin core.
"confidential payment codes" is the tool (piece of data) that make confidential transactions work

oh by the way..
confidential transaction = https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt (author gmaxwell, yep i laughed.. especially when he admits the ties to blockstream aswell)

and here is gmaxwells example of a laymen's description of a payment code "commitment = SHA256( blinding_factor || data )"
which gmaxwell has voluntarily called the buzzword "Pedersen commitments".. so i apologize that i dont want to use your buzzword, but prefer the more easier term of payment code

think about it.. instead of paying someone 10 sats.. the Pedersen commitments is a SHA hash.. (more data compared to the transparent amount)


as for you saying the "commitments come out of the block size limit-- they don't add to it.".. atleast be honest.
stop talking about the stupid light client no witness mode. and talk about the REAL/FULL data a full node see's and transmits.

with that said its obvious that you knew what i meant by 'payment codes' because you replied directly referencing "commitments" which we both know to be the same thing, even though you prefer your buzzword. (your free to copyright your buzzword, but doesnt mean the common community will be forced to use it)


your mindset is that as of autumn 2017, users will see 2mb of blocks with all the features such as confidential transactions, weakblocks, segwit and the eventual hard fork..(pretending that this 2mb offers 7600tx potential capacity, instead of 1mb 2500 average capacity of traditional blocks)

but that is the lame mindset of only talking about lightclients in no-witness mode.. yet fails to talk about the REAL data of FULL NODES.. please do the maths and statistics for FULL NODES like i asked in previous post

Franky, your constant (this is not your job?) selective presentation of the facts has long since gone past the point of nuisance behaviour. Please stop shilling against the Bitcoin team on this site, you have for the second time become so exasperated that you deride the entire forum in frustration, then comically continue to post.

That is to say, you have posted "no-one cares what bitcointalk thinks anyway", then flounced off. Then returned like nothing happened. Twice. Do us all a favour and stay down.

what the fuck is a "confidential payment code"? ... in any case, things like any additional commitments come out of the block size limit-- they don't add to it.

There is no math to provide, you're just outright lying-- and trying to obscure it by stringing together your jibberish with addition symbols. The faux-formalism might make it look truthier but it doesn't make it true.

2MB blocks are "Bitcoin Classic"'s roadmap, I suppose that the confusion is justified since that is the subject of this thread.

come on gmaxwell.. even you know better then that..
i think many have quoted you "Gmaxwell: Segwit is not about saving space for plain full nodes"
so even you know that segwit and other features are going to cause 'big blocks'

come on gmaxwell.. even you know that segwits 1.8x capacity (roadmap guessed 1.5-2x yet further investigation expects 1.8x) means 1.8mb of real fullnode data.
come on gmaxwell.. even you know that things like confidential payment codes turn a 500byte into a over 750byte average size.
turning 1.8mb blocks =2.7mb (without any capacity increase, just bloat instead)
then add on the extra bytes not in the tx but needed to link weakblocks in the block adds more, along with other flags too.
so while staying with the 1mb hard limit there is actually 2.85mb of real data per block once all features are combined from the roadmap

then when the final hard fork happens to turn the 1mb hard limit.. to 2mb.. the butterfly effect is
2mb traditional = 3.6mb segwit
3.6mb segwit = 5.4mb segwit+CPC
5.4mb segwit+CPC = 5.7mb segwit+CPC+all other features and flags

if all you can do is throw an insult and not actually give some maths, code, or statistics .. then you are not doing anything to convince people to your way of thinking.
so how about try to give some actual numbers that can be traced.. that explains the real extra bloat that will occur .. oh and to close a loophole. make sure you numbers are for the actual real FULL data of all the roadmap features used together and transmitted between FULL NODES.. try not to meander the numbers to hide them by talking only about pruned no witness lightclients.. be honest and give numbers for FULL NODES

that is my challenge to you..
no insults. but instead. actual byte for byte maths, stats and details of the bloat of using all of the roadmap features.

Thanks for confirming that your lying is intentional and not just a product of ignorance.

That is a Bitcoin Core roadmap, not blockstream, and has nothing about 2017 or "5.7mb potential real data transmission per block".

Look, retard, for now, off-chain txs means something else than the Bitcoin network.

If my telephone company sent me a letter saying I'll have to use carrier pigeons for a while because they're having capacity problems, I wouldn't be much chuffed. And for them to expect potential new customers to adopt their mobile services when they'll have to use carrier pigeons for the first months, maybe up to a year, is stupid to the brink of brain damaged.

Sometimes you have to go ugly early. You, of all people, should know that.

Didya ever wonder how businesses succeeded without "Vulture Capital"? How many open source projects can you name that were created by VC investment? Bitcoin is a bunch of code and a community of people that seem to like technology and dislike the global debt-based financial system. Institutional investors only came around late in the game to speculate and profit. This is not real growth, and they create no utility.

You seem to worship the parasitic financial elites, and regard their system as normal and/or effective.

so now gmaxwell is trying to say i must be lying.. the only way that can be true is if the roadmap doesnt exist..
and that lauda has not been the main glossy leaflet advertiser
hmmmm..
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13752212
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/segregated-witness-the-solution-to-scalability-short-term-1279444
(lauda's main technical catchphrase "Have you even looked at the picture shown in the original post?")

as for the drama of the whole roadmap. there were discussions (called round tables) that helped form the roadmap. which included an agreement for the hardfork for 2017
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-miners-agree-hard-fork-code-comes-july-2016-activation-in-2017/

i am going to presume lauda and gmaxwell will pretend that there have been no round tables and that the images lauda was advertising in regards to both segwit in late 2015 and roadmap in early 2016 must have been someone hacking his account by someone at blockstream member who posted those images

maybe instead of calling peple liars. gmaxwell should help out lauda to learn some C++ so that lauda might one day be able to read a line of bitcoin code. and thus not have to blindly advertise something he has no technical knowledge of, simply because someone presented him with basic info

You are getting ahead of yourself, fatty.

We gotta walk before we run, and I believe that the suggestion is that while some systems are still being built and expanded, there are reasonable transitional practices that can be taken if folks are really interested in building upon bitcoin that is already strong, but appearing to become stronger with upcoming implementations of seg wit and whatever other potential scaling solutions that may be needed over the passage of time.

Fred really lets loose with some howlers:

Ethereum has a more robust developer community
Ethereum’s core development team is healthy while Bitcoin’s is dysfunctional
Ethereum has a growth mindset while Bitcoin has a false sense of accomplishment
Ethereum is making faster and more consistent technical progress on the core protocol

Ethereum’s core development team - speaking of "well-meaning dip-sh*ts"... dip-sharts... dip-shards?

ETH's pump might end before their blockchain reaches 500GB... all of that $150 million, vanished into thin air...

Your above post demonstrates that you are in the habit of selectively picking your facts in order to conflate and convolute reality with your continued non-sense in which you are both asserting that blockstream is the same as bitcoin core and your attempt to confuse arguments by finding contradictions where there are none - especially in your confusing approach to creating false altcoin dichotomies... the reality of the matter is that some of you XT/Classic supporters have become desparate in your attempts to keep the blocksize issue alive and come up with all kinds of creative puns that in the end falsely conclude more or less the same thing "there's an emergency in play and bitcoin needs a blocksize increase ASAP" - anyhow a dumb assertion that does not become smarter merely because it is repackaged and comes up with various new ways to distort and conflate facts.

The Agreement has nothing to do with Greg , Blockstream , or the rest of core devs that didn't participate. Luke has promised to deliver the code to fulfill the agreement by July, whether the miners and the community decide to use it or not is unknown. The earliest a HF will occur will be in July 2017 if the miners stick to the agreement so don't expect anything soon.

Your question is odd because it assumes that Greg is running the show or even has commit access. He gave that up a long time ago. A question that would make sense in this context is asking each individual core devs their opinion.

ICOs are all such scams. I'd much rather mine it with my fair AMD Radeon Video Card.

How many Segwit's per block btw?

stop it... it hurts in my stumach......

BBBBBFFFWWAAAAAAHAAHAAAAA!!!!!!

@gmaxwell

will you comply with Antpool's demands and include the 2MB HF code into the next release?