Topic: ToominCoin aka &quot;Bitcoin_Classic&quot; #R3KT - page 32. (Read 157147 times)

You do realize that the people that signed that 'agreement' only represent themselves and nothing more?

Yes

what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!"

That is why we need to mitigate this risk by taking the action only when Classic looks almost totally defeated, with a 12 month grace period, a 95% activation threshold, in two steps (softfork flagging the hardfork, then the hardfork itself) and only to 2MB or smaller. There is another risk, which is that we avoid doing a hardfork only to avoid the perception that these aggressive inappropriate attack tactics work.

Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers?

The level of stupidity in /r/btc is so severe that I even suspect some small blockist agent provocateurs may be contributing to it.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Do you really think that ... most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.

You seem to miss that there is a difference between respect and blind unthinking obsequiousness.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

I think that you've got this all wrong and do not realize the type of 'people' that are behind this. Since Maxwell already mentioned shills and whatnot, what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!". Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.

At some point the limit will have to be raised anyway. So, it doesn't matter that much in the greater scheme of things.

Let's not forget that Classic got buried (or #REKT Tongue

) in part as an outcome of the agreement between devs + miners. I don't think an alternative scenario where miners sided with ...classic, would be better - I still remember the market reaction when it was thought that classic was winning because they had all that "support" (real or imaginary).

Core refusing to work for classic usurpers, pow hard forkings, btc getting forked in two with each one proclaiming the "one true btc" and stuff like that. Not very nice eventualities. All said and done, a hf in, say, a year, is not thaaaaat bad of a deal.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

I think Garzik is very likely to have his view of the best interests of the system driving his decisions. I would have said the same about Gavin, except after the CW fiasco I have little conviction as to his intentions. I think the best thing would be for him to stop supporting the counterproductive Classic attack for several months and then revaluate.

Fair point. Even though Garzik was in support of the HF, I didn't see him getting involved much in the 'politics' nor do much coding for Classic (if any at all?). However, he's the sole example.

This is why I think the actions of the developers in the HK agreement was unfortunately necessary and somewhat justified.

You do realize that the people that signed that 'agreement' only represent themselves and nothing more?

Quote from: jbreher on May 18, 2016, 02:07:44 AM

This is why we should do it form a position of strength. The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%. I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB. However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

I think that you've got this all wrong and do not realize the type of 'people' that are behind this. Since Maxwell already mentioned shills and whatnot, what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!". Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.

Update:

You seem to miss that there is a difference between respect and blind unthinking obsequiousness.

No.

jonny1000

member

Activity: 129

Merit: 14

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 17, 2016, 10:11:38 PM

You've come back to this point several times, and for some reason you seem to really believe that an increase in the physical blocksize limit is actually necessary.

Agreed, its not necessary. It may be a good idea to help keep fees very low for the next few years. I do not particularly care about this issue that much, however I do respect some people who think low fees in the short term is very important.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 17, 2016, 10:11:38 PM

then why make two changes simultaneously?

It can happen after segwit

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: billotronic on May 17, 2016, 10:13:45 PM

Quote from: trashman43 on May 17, 2016, 02:46:10 PM

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

THIS sounds like an alt coin sir and had nothing to do with bitcoin. Bitcoin solves bitcoin within bitcoin.

Hardforks are inherently NOT within Bitcoin. That's why it requires community consensus in the first place.

billotronic

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1000

Crackpot Idealist

Quote from: trashman43 on May 17, 2016, 02:46:10 PM

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

THIS sounds like an alt coin sir and had nothing to do with bitcoin. Bitcoin solves bitcoin within bitcoin.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: Lauda on May 17, 2016, 02:10:35 AM

This is why we should do it form a position of strength. The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%. I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB. However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

You've come back to this point several times, and for some reason you seem to really believe that an increase in the physical blocksize limit is actually necessary.

I have not seen any actual evidence that it is actually necessary, and it does not solve any real world problem to increase the physical blocksize limit while potentially adding more bloat, so why implement a change that is not needed and that also has some downsides including bloat? except if you happen to believe the loud screams that there is some kind of a real and actual problem

Further seg wit seems to be fairly soon around the corner, and there is likely a certain level of uncertainty regarding how much capacity in practice seg wit is going to cause.... If seg wit is a fairly major change, then why make two changes simultaneously? Why not just see how seg wit plays out and then let's say that down the road it does become apparent that an actual blocksize limit increase is needed, then yes it could be added at any time that it is actually needed, no?

jonny1000

member

Activity: 129

Merit: 14

Quote from: jonny1000 on May 16, 2016, 09:47:27 PM

At least some of the Classic/XT advocates did genuinely have Bitcoin’s best interests at heart, we just disagreed with their methods, we need to still respect them.

Exactly who might those be? Hearn, Gavin, maybe Toomin? Roll Eyes

I think Garzik is very likely to have his view of the best interests of the system driving his decisions. I would have said the same about Gavin, except after the CW fiasco I have little conviction as to his intentions. I think the best thing would be for him to stop supporting the counterproductive Classic attack for several months and then revaluate.

Quote from: Lauda on May 17, 2016, 02:10:35 AM

Quote from: jonny1000 on May 16, 2016, 09:47:27 PM

Gaining this victory was vital, it demonstrated the rules of the system are resilient, but at the same time weaknesses were exposed in the process.

One of the fundamental points of Bitcoin is this very resilience.

I agree. This resilience does exists to some extent and the more resilient the better. However we must not be drawn into a false sense of security by thinking the system is perfectly resilient in this respect. This is why I think the actions of the developers in the HK agreement was unfortunately necessary and somewhat justified.

Quote from: Lauda on May 17, 2016, 02:10:35 AM

Giving in to such uneducated fools (if I may say) is not going to help anyone..

This is why we should do it form a position of strength. The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%. I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB. However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Luke-Jr on May 17, 2016, 04:43:57 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on May 17, 2016, 04:39:51 PM

Quote from: trashman43 on May 17, 2016, 02:46:10 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on May 17, 2016, 04:39:51 PM

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

Sounds awesome, but remember one of the key point of cypherpunk bitcoin is "privacy". Nobody should be forced to take part in some political public demonstration. Besides, involving google?! wtf man. Why not directly mark the bagholders with some veal blood already?

Also, at what threshold do you consider the "polled stake" view (which may be as high as 99%!! omg) to overcome the whole bitcoins at stake?

Well, the stake poll would be entirely based on the signed messages, so it wouldn't reveal who owns the UTXOs at all.
Admittedly, there might be a privacy concern if you're already de-pseudonymised, but I don't know that there's even a hypothetical way to solve that.

I don't know any way to reach the entire community, and Google ads seems like a reasonable attempt.
It seems like BitcoinTalk and reddit only make up a tiny fraction of people using bitcoins.

I don't understand your last question.

Point is there is none. Nobody can ever know nor force anyone to participate in some democracy meme for any other reason than security (such as some encryption broken hardfix, which would require neither a vote nor google ads)

re: my last question: what fraction of the total bitcoin's marketcap stake should the "99% polled stake" be considered enough to commit hardfork?

edit:

Quote from: beautyon_

Bitcoin, by design, is not democratic. No matter how many times you try and assert that it is, it is not, and it never will be. And it is also not socialist.
Removing all of the fascinating, revolutionary technical details, the core of Bitcoin is that it is voluntary and the transactions and ledger entries made with it are mediated by a computer programme.

You choose, as a free human being, to download the required software, use Bitcoin and be bound by the nework’s fixed rules.

Finally, Bitcoin doesn’t care what you think. It doesn’t care about anything. What you think doesn’t matter; that is the ultimate power of Bitcoin.
The Blockchain is like a force of nature.
You must conform to ethical standards of behaviour in the Blockchain organized world, or starve, since the option of violence is taken off of the table.
The implications of all of this will only become clear once it is too late for the democracy lovers to stop it, who will be left scratching their heads wondering what happened, why democracy died, and crucially, why everything has not fallen apart…

https://medium.com/@beautyon_/bitcoin-is-not-democratic-81f87158250a#.ug1x7grh9

Imho you're beating a dead horse here with the vote thing. Why not move on?

Be free of your 'responsabilises' and roundtable's 'engagement'. Let it be.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: trashman43 on May 17, 2016, 02:46:10 PM

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

Sounds awesome, but remember one of the key point of cypherpunk bitcoin is "privacy". Nobody should be forced to take part in some political public demonstration. Besides, involving google?! wtf man. Why not directly mark the bagholders with some veal blood already?

Also, at what threshold do you consider the "polled stake" view (which may be as high as 99%!! omg) to overcome the whole bitcoins at stake?

Well, the stake poll would be entirely based on the signed messages, so it wouldn't reveal who owns the UTXOs at all.
Admittedly, there might be a privacy concern if you're already de-pseudonymised, but I don't know that there's even a hypothetical way to solve that.

I don't know any way to reach the entire community, and Google ads seems like a reasonable attempt.
It seems like BitcoinTalk and reddit only make up a tiny fraction of people using bitcoins.

I don't understand your last question.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: trashman43 on May 17, 2016, 02:46:10 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on May 17, 2016, 03:34:42 PM

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

Sounds awesome, but remember one of the key point of cypherpunk bitcoin is "privacy". Nobody should be forced to take part in some political public demonstration. Besides, involving google?! wtf man. Why not directly mark the bagholders with some veal blood already?

Also, at what threshold do you consider the "polled stake" view (which may be as high as 99%!! omg) to overcome the whole bitcoins at stake?

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.

I don't want to get too much in the weeds; however, probably, what you are suggesting would be a bit of an improvement over the status quo, but really there seems to be a broader interest in bitcoin and rights and stakeholding beyond current actual coin holders.

I mean we have future coin holders, we have past coin holders, we have people who invest in bitcoin through product, services and possibly in other ways such as alt coin contributions that may be absorbed into bitcoin but may not currently hold bitcoins.

There may be ways to give weighted value to a broader segment of the various bitcoin stake holders beyond actual coin holders even if they do not have actual coins (or many coins) at the moment of an actual poll/vote.

The ideal would be to imitate the economic consensus of people accepting payment, but I think polling current holders is the closest we can come to this.
Perhaps those who accept payments can opine publicly, and influence the poll through their potential customers?

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 11105

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: trashman43 on May 17, 2016, 02:46:10 PM

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.

I don't want to get too much in the weeds; however, probably, what you are suggesting would be a bit of an improvement over the status quo, but really there seems to be a broader interest in bitcoin and rights and stakeholding beyond current actual coin holders.

I mean we have future coin holders, we have past coin holders, we have people who invest in bitcoin through product, services and possibly in other ways such as alt coin contributions that may be absorbed into bitcoin but may not currently hold bitcoins.

There may be ways to give weighted value to a broader segment of the various bitcoin stake holders beyond actual coin holders even if they do not have actual coins (or many coins) at the moment of an actual poll/vote.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on May 17, 2016, 02:13:32 PM

Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.

how would you even measure how much of the community does consent?

i'm beginning to think a hard fork is completely impossible, except maybe for the narrow scenario where SHA-256, ECDSA or similar are broken.

maybe immutability of consensus is not worth breaking. especially when the best we seem to have to measure it is meaningless miner votes and node counts. fuck a democratic vote, especially ones that can be gamed.

i dont care about miner votes for soft forks. they can do that anyway regardless of anything we do. but for change/removal of consensus rules....no.

The best idea I know of today, would be to have an off-chain stake polling system, where coin-holders can indicate consent by a specially-designed signed message.
Probably we would also need interested parties to fund Google ads and similar to promote awareness of the new polling system, to ensure the majority of UTXOs mark their consent or dissent.
If 99% of polled stake consents to the hardfork, and a sufficient % of UTXO value participates in the polling, it'd probably be safe to move forward.

A safe hardfork can also be done which leaves old nodes "locked" rather than vulnerable to attack.
This protects any nodes that neglect/forget to upgrade in time, and can be designed such that if they really want to dissent too late, they can add a simple one-liner to bypass the "lock-out".

squatter

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1196

STOP SNITCHIN'

Can somebody explain why this thread isn't locked or removed?

no thanks. it's probably my favorite thread on the forum. good discussion of implications of forks, theoretical attacks, etc. and great mudslinging!! a good balance to the cesspool that is reddit.

trashman43

full member

Activity: 298

Merit: 100