Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 28. (Read 157147 times)

the only people using such rhetoric/propaganda are the two time major losers from the XT/crassic bubble cult.

Don't be silly, there are few places where you can get detailed arguments re: Bitcoin as in here.

Thats only half true, and what is half true is not true at all.

You missed out the critical point that a hardfork is essentially an altcoin. And for it to become bitcoin 2.0, it has to shift all 6 billion dollars into it.

The moment you make the hardfork you have 2 chains, one with 0 $ value and one with 6 billion, and that money has to travel from 1 place to the other.

And classic people want that to happen in 1 month, forced. Well its pretty hard to force people to move 6 billion over 1 month to a completely uncertain enviroment.

Bitcoin also lacks a dispute resolution system, so if the miners later change their minds about hardfork and revert, it can be a chaos.

A total chaos, where miners would not know which chain is the real one, as the 'highest difficulty' rule would not matter anymore.

Miners would have to guess the sentiment of the people and which one people want most and it would be a nightmare if it gets out of control.

Best case scenario would be that 6 billion $ would split into 2 coins (probably not evenly), worse case would be a total collapse and all that money would go back into fiat, as big whales would sell in panic.

Not to mention potential 51% attacks and other nastyness in the meantime...

It would be the end of bitcoin.

Nodes don't need to update all at once with a hard fork either. 

The difference between a soft fork and a hard fork is that a soft fork adds to the rule set whereas a hard fork removes from the rule set.  That's it!  Rolling out a hard fork is like rolling out a soft fork but in reverse.  For a soft-forking change, nodes can upgrade asynchronously after the miners start enforcing a new rule. For a hard-forking change, nodes can upgrade asynchronously before the miners stop enforcing an old rule.

To make it more concrete, here's an example:

WHAT WOULD A SOFT-FORKING CHANGE FROM 2MB BACK TO 1MB LOOK LIKE?

Ans. Miners would coordinate some time in the future, t0, where they agree to no longer build on top of blocks greater than 1MB; that is, at time t = t0 they would enforce a more-restrictive rule set.



Non-mining nodes may elect to enforce the restricted rule set (i.e., begin rejecting blocks greater than 1MB) at any time t >= t0.  However, they CANNOT enforce the restricted rule set for t < t0, without the risk of forking themselves off the network.

WHAT SHOULD A HARD-FORKING CHANGE FROM 1MB TO 2MB LOOK LIKE?

Ans. Miners would coordinate some point in the future, t0, where they agree to build on top of blocks greater than 1MB; that is, at time t = t0 they would enforce a less-restrictive rule set.



Non-mining nodes may elect to stop enforcing the old rule set (i.e., begin accepting blocks greater than 1MB) at any time t <= t0. However, they CANNOT continue to enforce the old rule set for t > t0, without the risk of forking themselves off the network.

Well if you "are somebody" and you have "high level contacts", then probably that informs us regarding how dumb are your various centralization ideas.

Your talking nonsense to propose  various fixes to a system that is not broken.

Bitcoin is not visa/mastercard, and since it is peer to peer, it is likely going to take some time for people and companies to build various subsystems that run on top of bitcoin that will allow various kinds of visa/mastercard level scaleability..

Do you want to go from processing a billion dollars a month to processing more than a trillion, over night, and even go from 200 million daily transactions to 1 trillion daily transactions? 

Sure, bitcoin is going to get there fairly quickly in the whole scheme of things, but it's not going to get there overnight, and we cannot rush such systems and to be sloppy and irresponsible when we are talking about billions of dollars stored on the network and millions of dollars transacted every day. 


Bitcoin is not a company, and no one controls it, and doesn't that seem to be a good thing, rather than what you seem to be proposing, 2cOde.

Don't confuse the protection of the decentralized status quo with a monopoly of power.

Since all alternatives to Core are only shameless powergrabs, therefore the monopoly of Core is the decentralized status quo.

---

Anyone can contribute to the bitcoin code, but the fact that currently Peter Wuille makes ~80% of the code doesn't make him a ruler of bitcoin, it just shows that anyone else is too lazy or lacks the skills to contribute properly to bitcoin and guard the decentralized features of it.

Yes. Our banking system has been using Blockchains for decades. You should check yourself before you shrekt yourself. You are no expert and Blockchain will be used, but the currency will be different!!




Who you think you are arguing with mate? I am someone, I have a high level contacts at important too-big-to fail institutions!

funny how blockstreamers who want market dominance pretend to want decentralization, while trying to push away any outsiders so that only blockstream remain...

someone really needs to shake these blockstreamers to wake them up.. its starting to get beyond a cultish joke now

And who would have that power? You?

Yea lets have 3-4 people ruling over (in the future) 500-600 billion dollars of other people's money and have total control over it. What could go wrong? Your wisdom is astonishing.

The banking system already works this way. Bitcoin is decentralized, doesn't need a central authority.

I believe that Classic & XT have a strong point. Segregated Witness, on the other hand suffers from unnecessary brittleness, the engineering problem it solves has a more straightforward and less silly solutions. Imagine the horror that a consensus would not be reached, or reached at a meeting in a wrong country, or maybe even that the consensus would not match the expected, in other words "inherent consensus". This is the misunderstood and not-well-studied Governance Problem. Just Imagine, for a second that Bitcoin is made more effective. We could literally reach visa scale, the orbit, and to reach inter-planetar security, we would transact in a closed-community, a small group of experts who would also have the authority to decide what program and transactions are approved and honest ("Satoshi-approved transactions on Satoshi-made network"), and what constitutes a scam or fraud ("Harmful transactions on an altcoin network"). In this way we could create and amazing system where fraud or scam does not happen, ever, simply because all less-intelligent users got robbed the very moment they use the system their first time.

A smart fridge that feeds you your favorite dishes, and is refilled using periodic food deployment is the promise of the "Smart Contract" technology. Moreover, a soda machines offers instant confirmations. This shall not be underestimated, and represents the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, to the moon!

I don't think anything other than the above can be argued. Classic & XT failed.

What are the lies, exactly?

The point of the matter is that various proposals were made by XT/Classic, and they failed to achieve consensus in order to be implemented.  What else do you have to believe? 

The other baloney that you refer to supposedly coming from Blocksteam/Core is kind of a tangent argument and even of questionable relevance.. when in fact the XT/Classic folks failed to muster enough support for their position to achieve changes that they were proposing to be needed.

TIL: most people on forums owned by theymos still believe the lies of Blockstream/Core.

---

Here's mine:Minus two.

Segwit has quite a few benefits, while a 2 MB block size limit has none (we can exclude the TPS increase as the both share it). I don't understand why this is so hard perceive. The only people that call out Segwit on its complexity are people who don't really understand code or are half-baked coders. Whoever I've asked previously (as I don't do C++ myself) said that the complexity is overblown by a 'certain group'.

I thought that you were getting better, Adam?  


I see that you are relapsing.      



Does anyone know penquin-specific CPR?  

Segwit on it's own solves the transaction malleability problem, thus enabling payment channels and true scaling at Layer 2.

Is that clear enough?  I doubt it's possible to explain this idea using smaller words or a shorter sentence.

2mb, like segwit's ~1.75mb, is also a "slight boost in transaction capacity."  I'm not sure how you've convinced yourself there's a huge "far more effective" difference between their tps increases.

A contentious hard fork is anything but "simple and efficient."  Didn't you notice that at some point during the last year of XT and Klassik debacles?  I guess the phrase "catastrophic consensus failure" is absent from your conceptual database.   

How can you be so sure of yourself and so wrong about the facts?  Are you Mike Hearnia or something?   

Most modern wallets will support segwit, just as they are starting to support RBF.  That's progress, and it didn't require the wallets to be "completely rewritten."

Take your ignorance and malicious falsehoods back to rbtc.  They have no power here.   

Mental gymnastics I can't even attempt to match.

I'll leave you to it.

But it doesnt affect everyone, and it doesnt coerce everyone to uppgrade.


No they cant, plus nobody coerces you to download the new wallet, and if you do you can verify the source code



But establishing a hardfork as precedent would be totally ok....


They will uppgrade after they see that its better, and if they dont, i guess the update can be revoked.

But if a hardfork fails, all that flip-flopping will seriously damage the reputation of bitcoin, not to mention the network's stability.




Imposing your will on others is never moral.

plus fucking one.