Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 35. (Read 157147 times)

It's ok, you can kill this thread. I don't mind.

BMB... did Fatty take over your account?  In recent times, you seem to be emulating.   

^^
 

Not only does a hardfork seem to be absolutely unnecessary, it should not be attempted unless it is absolutely necessary.

Accordingly, from my little understanding regarding technicalities (such as coding), the difference between a hard fork and a soft fork is either: 1) largely political or 2) in instances in which there is such a major technical flaw that you gotta force immediate and complete adoption because of such emergency technical change. 

If there is some other major reason for a hard fork that I am leaving out, then please advise.

Anyhow, it seems that attempting a hardfork to merely show that it can be done is a ploy that would undermine bitcoin's governance.. which is not necessary and not broken.

+1 I'm sick too. Had too much pop corn.


Btw dear ICY, I'm not misrepresenting, for one's simple question luke's answer is pretty straightforward:

asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why...
luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing


Luke has willingly and maybe innocently committed to instigate more uncertainty and drama in bitcoin's ecosystem instead of focusing in moving on now that their had they segwit thing out.

But them roundtable fools have been cornered by mining cartels (3 to 4 corps) to release some dummy hard fork if they were to implement them core baby segwit in the first place. And now Luke's wandering in the sea of bitcoin's community selling his shit like a mere door to door girlscout selling brownies. And that's bullshit i'm not keen on buying.

If the industry wants a hark fork, let them write whatever shit code they think they could force down the protocol's throat with them buncha ego tripping corporations whining for "progress" and deluding themselves as being relevant in bitcoin.


Also, Gmax, much appreciated your inputs. Glad you are still around!

There is no need for any compromise.

Maxwell explained why this is not the case.

Indeed. While I'm a bit curious as to what the HF proposal is going to contain, giving in to 'the industry' is definitely the wrong move here.

This is what it is all about. Someone previously said something in the lines of: People willing trade decentralization for a temporary price increase deserve neither and will lose both (It's an adaptation from B.Franklin's quote I believe).

Not gonna lie though, it makes me sick to see Luke state that this is to appease the industry. Why pander to them? They can learn how to make their model profitable or fuck off and die. Coinbase, Bitpay, Blockchain.info can't innovate, can't provide the revenue dream they sold to their investors? So they blame the tech, thinking big blocks and maybe a good ol' change of the guard will re-kindle their bankrupt "cheap transactions = mass adoption = profit" business plan. We should be boycotting these companies for their CEOs' complete and utter retardedness, constantly running their mouths about that which they clearly do not understand (or worse). I just wish someone would one-up Brian Armstrong, who compared incompatible bitcoin versions to Firefox and Internet Explorer -- but that one is hard to beat.

Thanks for responding, but I don't think that your sources for a supposed "economic majority" are good. 

I mean merely because there has been a lot of hype and loud voices around the issue (raising the blocksize limit) does not really mean that it is a good idea to raise the blocksize limit, even if there seems to be some common impression that there is some kind of "technical" problem, when there is not really any technical problem (such as delayed transactions and high fees). 

The issue about raising the blocksize limit has mostly been a bunch of hype and loud voices, especially when there are various technical solutions (including seg wit) in the pipeline.

Are you going to provide the extraordinary evidence required to prove your extraordinary claims?

Or should we just swallow whatever ridiculous assertion you dream up, like Gavin did in L'affair Hoaxtoshi?   

Over and over, the concrete evidence shows that the hardfork at all cost push comes largely from shills, conmen, and their victims.  When actual Bitcoins are put on the table in a cryptographically provable way the result is 180degress off from what the claims are in trivially sockpuppeted forums.

e.g. http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground
http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/unlimited-blocksize-is-bad-for-bitcoin-because-it-diminishes-incentive-to-pay-fees-and-in-the-long-term-it-makes-mining-unprofitable
http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/bip101-is-better-than-the-status-quo

If you want to resist the kinds of things your signature is talking about you need to steel yourself against claims like that, because they're a primary attack vector.

Besides, if wishes were horses beggers would ride:  Classic is a release behind core now, and not keeping up with network features which have been in the works for a year. It's headliner devs continue to not do anything, just as they were not doing anything with Core. Meanwhile, core continues to set the pace with both invention and development that to deliver improved scalablity, capacity, flexibility, privacy, etc. There is a clear reason why you can't get engineers who care about their reputations and about Bitcoin to back these HF at any cost initiatives-- they're no good for either.

The situation is pretty clear too and not just to me-- the big Classic voices, who are still haven't come to grips that with the fact that Wright defrauded them and denouncing wright are ramping up the complete and total dishonesty... such as mischaracterizing Theymos' repeat of the (good or bad) perennial proposal to make apparently lost coins secured with vulnerable cryptosystems unspendable after a long announcement and delay to prevent economic turmoil when someone steals them all at once, or claiming that a couple core contributors musing about potential countermeasures to the patent encumbrance of a vulnerability in SHA256 mining creating a government granted monopoly on mining is some move to make existing mining hardware unworkable, or claiming that Bitcoin core devs are totally going to line up and work on classic if only miners use it, or other such nonsense.

I am talking about the compromise increase reached by core devs and miners btw.

I agree that from technical perspective there is little point in 1 mb increase. From non technical there are some big benefits I believe.

I don't disagree with that, however if you take a look at e.g. r/btc you will see that the people are still very toxic (albeit seems "calmer" than before).

It is not useful since Segwit will provide similar capacity without the need for any other artificial limitations as found in Gavin's BIP.

I agree with you but that does not change the fact that if not for the agreement reached the noise would be much louder now.

Its also important to acknowledge different perspectives and that both can perspectives can be right.  1 mb is a can kick down the road, but often can kicks are useful.

It would also install some more confidence into Bitcoin and could potentially unite the community. That would have big benefits but has nothing to do with the 'technicals'.

Possible relevant analogy: The economists telling the engineers to upgrade the servers because they think that is the right action.
How many times have we tried explaining why a X block size limit HF is pointless, and how it solves nothing? Take Segwit for example, it makes validation time scale down from quadratic to linear. Guess what? 99.9% of the people who read this don't even know what it means, nor have they ever heard of the O-notation. Some will just pretend like they do, but if they actually did they would not be requesting 'solutions' that solve nothing.

Hard fork to lift capacity.

Opinion of economic majority is something that is hard to measure. Mostly its based on my experience and anecdotal evidence.  Talking to people in person and on web.


Edit: Some of the miners are not particularly happy with deal and want an increase in blocksize asap, what if Antpool or F2Pool or both started mining classic? Their combined percentage is  50% hashpower.

This would also energize other classic proponents and they would be far lauder.

That would be a very unproductive environment for everybody and certainly damaging to price.  

DanielW:  What is your source for gauging what the "economic majority" wants?  And, what do you mean by hard fork?  Do you mean increase the blocksize limit,  change in governance, some combination of such, or something else?

Im not sure Greg, things are only this calm because of the agreement.

Like it or not a significant amount of 'economic majority' want hard fork asap and most likely 'economic majority' want a 'reasonable' hard fork soon.

What a bizarre rant; I'm glad you now feel better about XT/Unlimiturd/Klassic getting rekt like Stannis at Winterfell.  

Luke wasn't groveling, he was just doing a survey.  What's wrong with that seemingly constructive, potentially productive, act of diplomacy?

Adam is Greg's boss; that such (insubordinate?) free expression is accepted speaks well of Blockstream's non-hierarchical, free-thinking corporate culture.

What is "JJG" and why would it infect my treehouse?  

And what makes you think I've ever so much as logged on to #BA?

You keep relying on the word "only" to make your argument, but luke already (even in the irc log) specified "some security reason."


"Fix block withholding" = "some security reason"

Block withholding isn't the only security improvement on the Hard Fork Wish List.

It's possible to both A. improve the external+internal optics of Bitocoin governance and B. improve Bitcoin security AT THE SAME TIME.

I hope this obvious statement isn't considered thoughtcrime in tmsr; I'd hate to chastised with a "$down" for my insolence.   

The "hard forks should only happen in exigent circumstances, and may never be elective" position certainly has my sympathy, but my default support wavers when you start irrationally distorting, twisting, and misrepresenting the arguments in favor of the opposite approach.

But ultimately isn't that the nature of a system that is purported to be decentralized?


Various persons are going to come to differing independent judgements about what to do and how to spend their efforts and energies.

Surely, adults can feel as if they were forced into agreeing about something, but in the end, if someone felt coerced, then that person should retract and hopefully learn from the experience not to let such happen again, and attempt to do so in a way that preserves some of credibility...   Also, many of us discover over years of living that there are ways to agreeing to things that are sufficiently general in order to allow sufficient credibility.    Bitcoin is certainly no company with a dictator or a means in which a small group of people are going to lock it down based on one amorphously written agreement. 

Anyhow,  individuals are going to come to different conclusions regarding how to act and what to do and sometimes act irrational and burn bridges and sometimes burn credibility... but hopefully learn from those experiences, as well.