Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 25. (Read 157147 times)

What the @#$@ are you talking about?  "blockstreams 2017 roadmap"?!?!?! Where can I get a copy of this?

And "potential"? The fact that a miner could create contrived high cost blocks is nothing new, right now miners can create blocks that take something like 20 minutes of cpu time to validate. But this sort of intentional bloat-block is almost equivalent to just delaying publication of the block.  What matters for the long term system cost is the average size of blocks, not the potential for a single unusually costly one. Without segwit the unusually costly risks are just different (instead, they take the form of utxo bloat blocks or signature hashing bloatblocks). If your metric of risk is the worst case time it can take to transfer and process a block, segwit does not increase this over the current state: It does allow more data to be sent in the worst case, but segwit transactions have massively faster worst case validation. The end result is that the worst case block with segwit is exactly the same as the worst case block without, you can't use segwit transactions if you want to make a block that propagates very slowly.

Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Where is Bitcoin Classic's segwit implementation? Hell, where is their mediantimepast and CSV implementations?  Even when they can just copy code from core they can't seem to keep up. If you're going to complaint about something not moving fast enough, it's not core you need to look at...

There's no reason they couldn't use off-chain transactions until Lightning is ready, as daytraders have been doing since 2011.
If the companies are really concerned about it, they could also fund development of Lightning to get it done even faster.

The limitation isn't Bitcoin - it's what the companies are willing to do the work for.
Blaming Bitcoin is just propaganda to enable laziness for greedy companies that want to reap the benefits without doing any of the work.

or a better question is who are these companies exactly?

... and then if they are real and do have 100 million users why isn't it they cannot afford to build their own layers, Lightning, Thunder, Sidechain, etc to scale bitcoin to their needs? The technology exists someone just needs to stump up to build it ... at present Blockstream is one of the few actually building shit and not clipping the ticket.

the real question is once all of the smoke and mirrors are removed, idea's like LN is nothing more then the same scenario of 2012.
depositing funds into a locked third party address (hub) and then trading funds on a different platform.
sounds the exact same as trading btc-e/mtgox keys via bitinstant, just without registering the business....

so sticking with ONCHAIN BITCOIN
who lied to blockstreamers that 2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)
who lied to blockstreamers that segwit was the scaling solution because other solutions should be ignored due to data issues
who lied to blockstreamers that segwit is perfect. (yet not even released publicly)
who lied to blockstreamers that 2mb in 2015 was bad but over 5mb in 2017 is good yet that 5.7mb does not offer 5.7x the capacity of current 1mb blocks(estimate of only 3x)

2017 roadmap
segwit offering 1.8x capacity along with the eventual 2mb hard fork = 3.6mb + average transaction goes from 500byte to 750+bytes due to CPC = 5.4mb. plus a few extra bytes of data per transaction for different flags and features=5.7mb potential bloat per block.
good old blockstreamers.. pretending to be smallblockers hating the idea of big blockers.. yet they themselves are the big blockers..

How exactly would it be lying? BTC couldn't handle the tx capacity added from these users right now. Forcing them to engage in a bidding war with eachother for blockspace is not good business sense. It might be able to handle them in the future, but not right now, and the now is all that matters for these companies.

Hilarious+Furious Medium post writing confirmed:

https://medium.com/the-coinbase-blog/ethereum-is-the-forefront-of-digital-currency-5300298f6c75

Shots fired.  Here we go again!   

The real question you should be asking, is who lied to these companies that Bitcoin can't handle their users?

I recall several posts back, maybe two weeks ago, you brought up this topic, and said it's no big deal but you sure would like to see some voluntary bitcoin scaling, and now you seem to be getting all worked up over this topic and attempting to insist that scaling needs to be done and that bitcoin is going to die if scaling does not occur.

Furthermore, you are overhyping the importance of the recent ETH pump.. yeah, you have created some kind of selective presentation when you say ETH has been the only one to surpass $1billion.. and yeah, technically, that is correct, but so far, at best ETH has only risen to 17% of bitcoin's market cap.. yes, that is so far...

Remember Ripple?  In December 2015, Ripple was nearly 20% of Bitcoin's market cap.... yes, Ripple was pumped and pumped and pumped..   Currently, Ripple is about 3% of bitcoin's market cap.

Yeah, maybe ETH is going to make some better headways and get more of bitcoin's market cap, but so fucking what?  Even though ETH is supposedly innovative in so many ways, it has way too many issues to properly surplant BTC, and in fact, ETH likely continues to need BTC in order to continue with its various pumping scams.

I have no problem going over to ETH if it were to surplant BTC, but anyone who is in anyway knowledgeable about the differences between ETH and BTC should recognize that ETH is no kind of threat to BTC because it is offering a different thing.. and bitcoin is not broken for its intended purpose (securing value immutably and permissionlessly)

I have to say, I'm much happier now that I've stopped paying close attention to this debate. Demand will happen when it's ready, and if bitcoin is there to support that demand, great. If not, another cryptocurrency will fill the void. The good news is, cryptocurrencies combined market cap keeps growing and growing. More infrastructure is built on top of it every year. Even if bitcoin is mismanaged and becomes myspace, cryptocurrency is here to stay.

Well, obviously you know the relationships of these various participants a lot better than me, and therefore, you are likely a lot more aware of various underlying dynamics, including whether folks may have been either coerced or going overboard in their attempts to represent their authority. 

I consider one great thing about bitcoin is the decentralized fundamentals, but then again if there are some folks who are in employer / employee relationships, then their free acting can be jeopardized or biased.

In the end, when I read the hong kong agreement, it seemed fairly reasonable and sufficiently amorphous in order to leave plenty of room for loopholes.. it seems a bit disingenuous to assert that people were coerced or to rely too much on those kinds of claims... .. but anyway, the agreement may show a kind of sentiment that is not binding but advisory even though some of the players may have been considered to have lower level positions than others.. but it can also be a continued dialogue and also it can cause some progress in the space, which  I think that it did.. even if the thing was not exactly binding.






Well, yeah, some of the "insider trading" may be illegal in other contexts, and who knows the extent to which some of the Coinbase insiders were likely trading on such knowledge and may even continue to be aware of additional ETH pump efforts that may or may not succeed (once the tide begins to change)..  and those who don't get out early enough may get a bit screwed

Yep.. agreed. 

There is some rippling effect from investments, and I am glad that some of the early investors in bitcoin saw fit to invest in bitcoin and to develop the space.. In the end, we need the VCs and the VCs need the speculators, and possibly somewhere down the line some of the VCs are going to make some decent profits from their BTC venture investments even though measuring each investment individually, it may not seem to be a very good investment... also, successful business will also tend to learn from some of the failed businesses to take some of their successful components and maybe to avoid some of the unsuccessful components to the extent that they can identify those aspects.

Don’t listen to the bankster troll sock puppet campaign. Status Quo Segwit in April. ETH is a centralized scam coin for Coinbase employees to pump.

The sand’s nice n warm. Join us, will you?

^ doesnt icebreaker see the words he says about others are infact his own actions against anyone not blockstream.

pot, kettle, black

as for his crosshairs.. he is just shooting himself in the foot

Gotta love how pearl-clutching Precious Fred subtly emphasizes the magnitude of your supposed Great Offense by delicately replacing with asterisks a few key letters of your Unspeakably Transgressive & Vulgar term.  

Rule #13 - you're soaking in it....  

Isolating, freezing, fixating, polarizing, and escalating based upon the term "dipshits" is textbook Alinsky agitprop.

So is reducing the blocksize/governance debates to a referendum on a (your) particular personality.

Armstrong's otherwise baffling and bizarre actions are consistent with this ("Blockchain Alliance = the ACORN of Bitcoin") hypothesis.  IE,


The best things about being targeted by the Hivemind are the options which become available when you are in their crosshairs...  

And yet ETH has become the first alt to surpass a $1billion market cap. BTC is sitting at around 80% market share. Do you really think it will not decline even lower if we still don't have scaling implemented two fucking years from now?

You must have some thick skin to weather this kind of negative media attention. I've met Vitalik. If/when this kind of shit hits his fan, I'm afraid he'll cry for days. Did you hear about the Wiki editor who had a nervous breakdown? Ya, don't do that.

seems like gmaxwell hates mining pools and exchanges.. yet gets a nice payday from blockstream..(come on everyone can see clear as day that the $55million is not just being used by Mr. Back alone)

is it due to the fact that blockstream loves their fiat handouts and partnerships with fiat based institutions instead of businesses that are predominantly in the crypto-spere.?

or is it that those crypto-based businesses didnt offer him a job so he had to sell out to the fiat lovers, and is now fearing the prospect of 'doing a hearne' when the blockstream(bank backed) business pushes him away.

i presume another word twisting game play by blockstreamers, saying they are not bank backed will be a possible reply.. yet everyone can transparently see who the main investors of blockstream are. and the partnerships via PwC are.. which cant be denied

i also presume another word twisting gamee play from blockstreamers will eventually be that their blockstream payouts are for their 9-5 private employment, and that their evenings are free and unpaid to volunteer' on bitcoin projects.

but lets see how many people defend blockstreamers.. with the same reasons to protect blockstream that they used to attack anything not blockstream. and then just laugh at the hypocrisy of that act

So now your accusing the guy who released the first Alt to get any traction, that went to work for a bitcoin startup, of pumping Ether?  

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.

i wonder how much of that VC money ended up in coders' hands who turned around and bought bitcoin with it ??