Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 38. (Read 157147 times)

A number of big classic promoters were also big Wright-fighters.

I find myself wondering which way the causal arrow goes? Did Wright, as part of his general deception, convince some of these folks that he created Bitcoin and then spun them up on blocksize because it was his own poorly informed view of the future... or did Wright see their block-size mania as a juicy cognitive vulnerability and exploit it to gain their trust? Maybe a bit of both in a mutually amplifying cycle?

In any case, a strong relationship there would do a lot to explain a number of rather perplexing things-- including the absolute, yet wildly unjustified, confidence in the XT and Classic's forks when they lacked so much, including a productive and experienced set of people supporting them. As extreme as that confidence was in public, what I've seen in  in private is magnitudes worse. "No worries, the Creator will come and save the day."

The constant leaking "satoshi's vision" from that camp might also be connected here.

I'm interested in getting further data points on exactly how this scam was spreading in the Bitcoin space. I have some dates and some people, but a lot I don't know.

But perhaps I'm just being hopeful, -- since if this is true, the worst of this drama may be finally over.

you can add Craig Wright, seen here simply proving big blocks == #R3KT

*Classic REKT intensifies*

https://twitter.com/alfiedotwtf/status/726301918012694528

 

Let's make a list of martyrs to the hopeless cause of Classic, with hilarious personal sobriquets indicative of their particular foibles.

-Gavin "20MB is fine OH WAIT" Andresen
-Mike "Whiny Ragequit" Hearn
-Roger "Bitcoin Judas" Ver
-Cypher "Frappuccino" Doc
-Brian "I Bet Classic Wins" Armstrong
-Wences "Trust Xapo" Casares
-Justin "Unlimited Bikeshedding" Ranvier
-Toomim "Not Much Testing Needed" Bros

https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/710261392927014912

Oh my, that is savage.

Remind me to never get on Bram Cohen's bad side!   

now how many sold-out XT, Classic, UL bulls are now lining up to buy back in 

hope they can afford the fees for when the blocks get full for their rally-chasing purchases

Here we go!  Gavin is Officially supporting CoinbaseCoin.   

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-exchanges-seriously-considering-funding-competitor-gavin-andresen/

I don't know why you would conclude that my feelings are involved in this at any higher level than necessary. 


\I am just making various points on the internet.  You made your points and I made mine... 

he may have just sold his soul ... I recall one post where he said that banksters were paying him megabucks per hour ... now he has said he enjoys to post about FUD that he is thinking about ... maybe he just gets paid megabucks to post any FUD he likes to think about? 2+2=? I guess I would enjoy that too.

U don't really know that he actually sold his account.

we are down to discussing favourable flavours of anarchy ... progress.

What about the Classic workforce aka engineers and code writers? Do you still side with Classic?

Even though we are allowed to speculate here, we should attempt to stay within reality regarding some of our known facts, and you seem to be going on quite a tangent with your assumption that seg wit allows more opportunities for bitcoin-related fractional reserve banking. 

Let's consider that under our current bitcoin practice, we have quite a few bitcoin merchant entities and bitcoin exchanges that are holding private keys and therefore holding bitcoin's and conducting transactions off of the blockchain... in essence we have to trust that they are not trading more bitcoin's than they actually hold (through their off chain transactions).  The weight of the credible evidence seems to suggest that Lightning Network creates structures and incentives to have more and more of these historical transactions to be connected with the blockchain.  Even though they may not be immediately settled, they are connected with the blockchain, and entities using LN will not be able to transact with coins that they do not have. 

You seem to be suggesting the opposite, as if LN transactions will not be tied to the blockchain and entities utilizing LN can somehow create or use coins on the LN that they do not have... which makes little sense... based on the actual factual descriptions regarding what LN provides.









We gotta see how it plays out... It is way too early to be attempting to predict fees based on potential services that are going to be offered and the extent that there may be competition.



Makes little sense.  There are going to be both regulated and non regulated conduct within this space for some time to come.


yeah... you do seem to be exaggerating fees because we really do not know, yet.... because there are forces in both directions (bringing fees up and bringing fees down)





It's possible that there will not be a need to increase the blockchain limit.  Why raise it if it does not need to be raised?



I doubt that anytime soon we are going from free and penny transactions to $10 to $100 transactions.. makes little sense, in our life times.



If fees are that high, then I'm sure people will search for and find alternative and less expensive means to transact value.

Well, I've said once already that I agreed with the point you made! I just don't agree with the way you made it, i.e. misrepresenting an entire political philosophy as being a pernicious force in order to make your point. But the point stands, and I haven't said even once I disagreed, the opposite in fact.

This has got nothing to do with my feelings (), but of simply representing facts correctly. Sorry if your feelings have somehow become involved, but they shouldn't be.

Actually, your narrow focus on one word does not make you smart, but instead makes you patronizing and deviating from the actual point(s) that I made.

I've read several of your posts, and frequently, you make decent sense, except when you get on some of these dumb-ass tangents...


Yes, we all know rule and ruler are two words and two related concepts; however, for the purposes and points that I was making, it doesn't fucking matter... thus.... this part of the discussion has become a considerable and irrelevant tangent... that possibly makes you feel good because you want to instruct regarding some irrelevant point that you are acting as if you know and others do not know?

The funny thing about this comment is that the vast majority of onchain merchant commerce is processed through Coinbase and Bitpay. I would posit that for the majority of commerce-related transactions, both buyers and merchants would be happy to connect to Coinbase and Bitpay on LN. Are you suggesting that moving this activity off-chain is bad for bitcoin? Bad for scaling? I'm at a loss.


That's possible when people use Coinbase as a custodian for their bitcoins, as is commonly done now. Your exchange balance is an IOU for bitcoins.

It's impossible on the Lightning Network since spenders on LN can recoup their money if/when Coinbase can't cover its channel obligations. That's the point of time-locked contracts.


LN users have direct access to the blockchain as they always do; onchain fees may be higher than when there was no demand for bitcoin transactions, yes. That's why a channel-open onchain transaction + negligible fees on LN thereafter is preferable to one onchain transaction.


If your speculation about prohibitive onchain fees and the limits of LN to a hub-and-spoke model, maybe. Neither of those scenarios are entirely clear. In any case, LN is a proposed solution for micropayments. There was never any implicit guarantee of perpetually free/cheap bitcoin transactions. If LN routing is not as robust as planned, bitcoin continues to function as intended.


Fees are not a novel concept in bitcoin, Adam. Your comments merely boil down to whining about not wanting to pay the costs of a confirmed onchain transaction.

The danger of reliance on centralized entities is well known. The beauty of LN is that user funds are not subject to the dangers of such centralization, as LN users are still the custodians of their own money.


That's possible. Probable? Who knows. It doesn't sound like the worst problem to have. Such demand for bitcoin and bitcoin transactions only suggest very good things for investors. For those of us who look to bitcoin as a store of value, and not primarily as a payment method for everyday purchases, this is a very good thing.


You're just pulling numbers out of your ass. If a typical onchain fee = $50, what value of transactions are we talking about?

I'd go further than that, changing the blocksize doesn't alter the scale that Bitcoin operates on at all, it simply increases the transaction throughput by the same factor that resource usage is currently set to (i.e. 226 bytes per input, 1MB per block). Doing that literally does not change the scale in any way.

i guess we'll always have some level of congestion on the mainchain because of this spam. oh well out pricing the spam inorder to get into a block is a tiny 2-5 cent fee, so no big deal.

In essence, the above idea likely explains a great deal of your failing/refusing to accept and to seem inclined to falsely point out conspiracies in a large number of areas.  In this regard, you take a few facts, and then you assign malevolence within speculating how they will play out....   Probably, you need to fix this yourself, rather than spewing out some of these various conspiracies on public forums... while apparently attempting to get others to jump onto your conspiratorial logic.   

Surely, skepticism is healthy, and I surely agree that there are a lot of true and real conspiracies out there that undermine regular people, but we gotta be somewhat practical in our acceptance that the world has a variety of explanations for outcomes and directions besides conspiracies.

Accordingly, bitcoin's governance is not broken.  Difficulty in making changes is a feature and not a bug,  and it seems to be a very good thing that it is difficult to change it (such as implementing stupid ass governance changes within XT and classic - that really should be recognized as coup attempts).
 

No. Is it mostly due to spam. That's about it. My mempool knows what is up.

public announcement:
the will of the majority has officially dissolved my own, i hear by welcome and am excited to see how all this segwit + LN + very decentralized nodes, will play out, and i think it will be a positive change.
my foolish notions of sacrificing some decentralization for immediate capacity incress are no more,  and have been replaced with a more balanced view of growth by means of additional layers in order to provide unlimited capacity while keeping bitcoin fully decentralized.
the temporary congestion on the network due to the lack of readiness of LN, is insufficient justification to change the conuses protocol to 2MB blocks.
I make no apologies for my past views, and the poeple i have annoyed, it was necessary for me to play devil's advocate to apply and maintain maximum tension between both sides, to insure the most balanced outcome was reached. now that the course is locked in i see no reason to continue to fight a losing battle.