Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 24. (Read 157147 times)

I dont like Bounty, give me a DAO.
 

7% of the hash rate is hashing with classic

If there is a bounty I can translate in Greek!

BAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!!!

Best this week!

Edit: I can't stop laughing!!

Will there be an ICO? 

http://gavinandresen.ninja/bitcoin-protocol-role-models

The latest lame, sour grapes spin from Camp Gavin is Klassic wins and fulfills its purpose simply by existing.   

That's why we see this nonsense about Klassik not needing to follow Core's "cadence."

Such decentralization. Where does Bitcoin fit in all of this?


No, it's Bitcoin. Those greedy companies are supposed to be greedy. What part of trustless is it you don't understand?

What is the protocol?

21 Mio. fix,   Good, volatility = 0.   

Blocksize fix ? not good, we need some volatiliy.

User adoption rate & market price ? volatility wellcome!

But the fee volatility thats coming up now is big big bs ...  Who should adope that?

No kidding-- the only value in replying is that most people don't expect such audacious lies, and if there is no correction at all these jerks will keep doubling down on their dishonesty until joe-bystander, who can tell that it's at least 99% rubbish, thinks that at least 1% of it must be true.

You dont bother change bitcoin protocol because its impossible, especially for marketing or political reasons.

Any change is OK with a formalized change management process, e.g. first collecting feed back from all stakeholders, then implementation based on consensus. Without this process, it will definitely create disruption in the community and many wasted efforts in coding since the code will never be used. The order is wrong by first coding then pushing it out

Of course by this approach you will never be able to make large and complex changes, but that is good to make sure the system works at its maximum stability, especially important for financial systems. Some banks are still using protocol from 1960s, why bother change bitcoin protocol every a few months

the bad faith and despair from classic statist turds is palpable, move on to eth ffs!


luke, I mean no offense but stfu and write the dipshit HF! faster! got a roundtable deadline here!

I find it hilarious that big blockers are jumping on the ETH hype train.
Everyone knows that the Ethereum blockchain is bloated and already ginormous which doesn't bode well for a coin so young.

Soon they are gonna find out why it's a good idea to keep blocks as small as possible.

What a joke. ETH is based on the speculative premise that smart contracts are important and will have value. Surely once disaster strikes, everyone will ignore the save-heaven and rush into ETH because of these contracts. At least we know who is behind the ETH pump ("coinbase blog").

I've completely missed out on this. How come that there were no Classic supporters talking about it?

You're wasting your time with that guy. According to him, I'm in Blockstream's PR department.  

the reason being is because if you read all of this 99 page topic.. the blockstreamers themselves are presuming that blockstream is bitcoin.. and anything else involving people NOT on blockstream salary or not a blockstream religious sect must be an altcoin.. yet the hypocrisy and truth of it, is that blockstream itself are the altcoin developers..

even my last post pointed out the failings of a blockstreamer who is blindly presuming that segnet is bitcoin.. even when his own words are telling him that segnet is its own altcoin with its own genesis block. he still feels that segwit is a piece of perfection that is handling bitcoin transactions right this second perfectly....

the comedy moments about the blockstream hypocrisy is truly rib tickling hilarity.
if only blockstreamers opened their minds and stopped defending their altcoins and instead invested their passion and brains into the possibility that people who are NOT paid by blockstream may actually want bitcoin to grow ONCHAIN for the benefit of the community, then they would not be trying to suggest non-blockstream is an altcoiner.. and instead realise blockstream is the altcoiner.. as even you have realised this.

putting it to the bottom line
blockstreams idea is 5.7mb of data for approximately 7600tx capacity.
yet when anyone else said 4mb of data for 10,000 average capacity. blockstreamers threw a dummy out the pram
yet when anyone else said 2mb of data for 5,000 average capacity. blockstreamers threw another dummy out the pram

for a blockstream lover you seem to have never seen blockstreams roadmap that said they would finally agree to a hardfork in 2017 once they have things like confidential payment codes and other features sussed first..

i find that a real shock that your pleading ignorance to the blockstream roadmap... shame on you

lol lol
noooo.. segwit is still in testing stage on a different network, its not part of the bitcoin main net.. so to all intense and purposes its not released publicly..

show me one person that can use REAL bitcoins on bitcoins PUBLIC LEDGER that can perform segwit..

segnet is an altcoin right now. with its own genesis block and its own chain.(dont deny it, as even you yourself said its genesis began in january)
if your going to presume that non-blockstream implementations are some kind of altcoin (usual mantra blockstreamers chant)... how about try not to pretend segnet is not an altcoin or a sandbox while trying to convince people that its a working solution that is live for bitcoiners..

The obvious game-theoretically consistent solution to this is for some miners to stop trying to validate aberrant blocks, and get back to the business of hashing. For such would be a market advantage. Assuming such aberrant blocks are ever created in any volume.


I wasn't aware Classic was beholden to Core's cadence. 'Twould kind of defeat the purpose, no? For that matter, where is Core's Xthin implementation? Where is Core's per-node variable limits? Where's Core's big block support?

Right - they're not seen as desirable by Core. Well, there's your answer.

But it seems you'd rather attack a straw horse than discuss a real issue.

You sure make a lot of assertions about "blockstreamers" x, y, z - but bitcoin is not blockstreamers.. so you are making little to no sense.  My understanding is that there are various bitcoiners who are involve in blockstream, but blockstream is looking into ways to build on bitcoin.. and it is not bitcoin in itself.  

Anyhow, your post seems to attribute a variety of matters to blockstreamers makes little sense, and seems to be an attempt to convolute matters and to claim something is other than it is in order to spread FUCD.

You are just guessing, Chopstick.

There is no real evidence that various companies could not figure out ways to develop on BTC if they wanted to... They do not want to incorporate bitcoin into their business because they want to create confusion and attempt to find their own way with their own private blockchains and other centralized systems.. any kind of discussion that bitcoin is crippled or debilitated is a distraction and not supported by any actual evidence (besides some people who know how to scream loudly about shit that they make up non-evidentiary matters).