Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 39. (Read 157147 times)

Ever heard of a "straw man" argument?

(of course you have as you have been using them for about the last year)

A bought account spouting nonsense is all that @adamstgBit is now (and interestingly enough the other "usual suspects" seemed to have stopped posting so maybe the "classic" funds are now running dry).

the only evidence i will accept is some logical scenario in which i can still send 5$ donation to wikileaks, even if fee on the blockchain are above 5$.

Not really. Although, there are even people that argue that Bitcoin has always operated as a settlement layer. Anyhow, stop with the bullshit and nonsense from Classic. The block size limit is the most ineffective, and idiotic way to scale Bitcoin. Discussing is pointless at the moment due to three things (that we have concluded over this time period):
1) You're wrong.
2) You won't admit to being wrong regardless of evidence.
3) Look again at 1.

@adamstgBit logic - oops that actually doesn't exist (there is no logic behind your posts).

Epic fail

(and for those that are not aware he sold his account around a year ago so don't be fooled into thinking he has been around on this forum for years)

Core logic: if bitcoin nodes are only ran by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.
Classic logic: if bitcoin becomes a settlement layer only used by a few 1000 large entities then bitcoin has failed.

i side with Classic on this one....

its a problem... when coinbase realizes it always has about 10X more user deposits then it does user funds tied up in the lighting network, and can easily start fractional reserve operation.

IMO LN will fosters this type of scheme were coinbase behaves like a bank, and blockchain is a settlement layer the users dont have direct access to.

also, I might not be able to send a 5$ donation to wikileaks because coinbase is a regulated entity and i am forced to deal with coinbase for TX <25$ because its to costly to do <25$ payments directly on the blockchain.

how to regulate the blockchain payments.

step 1, regulate large bank like bitcoin entities
step 2, prohibit users from using the blockchain directly by imposing high fees.

DONE!

I might be exaggerating the level of fees. fees might very well come down to 2012 levels once LN makes all the TX happening between bitpay coinbase bitfinex stamps etc etc all of chain, allowing users to keep making direct payment on the blockchain and leverage the LN to quickly move funds between coinbase and stamps or whatever. but i can see how eventually ( should the 1MB limit never be raised ) the blockchain will be over runned by LN open and close TX's and since millions of dollars will be transacted in these channels fees for opening and closing these channels could be 10's if not 100's of dollars.
a fee of 50$ to transact the main chain means individuals payments MUST go through payment gateways which is a bad thing, which is what bitcoin was meant to avoid.

Well, the word "rule" and "ruler" are superficially similar, but the meanings are considerably different from one another. You're describing the distinction as "nonsense" and "lame"? I wouldn't like to be around you in a situation where that difference mattered. That difference makes a great deal of sense, even if you refuse to acknowledge it. They are separate words with separate spellings for a reason: because they're not the same word, and do not mean the same thing

Actually, that sounds great.  Are you trying to sell Lightning network... and to discontinue your pursuit of XT/Classic and/or other variations?


In the above described scenario, some of the bigger players will get off of the direct block; however, with LN they are still going to be within bitcoin and somewhat more transparent than they are currently with there variety of stupid-ass off chain transacting systems.  Accordingly, LN is going to probably accomplish at least a few goals 1) keeping more transactions accountable on the blockchain which lessens likelihood of fractional reserve banking 2) freeing up more of the blockchain for direct transactions, without the big boys, 3) allowing further delays in keeping the blocksize limit down in order that we do not get too much bloating

I agree with your overall point about some rules being good - and there can be considerable arbitrariness with rulers; however, to me, it sounds as if you are attempting to make one of those lame libertarian and nonsensical distinctions.  

Frequently, libertarians get caught up on a strain of foggy logic in which they are making a bunch of inconsistent criticisms of the status quo (they also tend to mix up comments regarding the world as it is and the world as they perceive that it should be.. which tends to lead to even a higher level of nonsense), and then idealizing some kind of world that attempts to get rid of human actors.  We are always going to have human actors who are able to exercise discretion and frequently become abusive of their power and/or position.  A fact of life that we gotta deal with and attempt to build systems to put in check and also to disincentivize various abusive behaviors.

I could give a ratt's ass whether technically I am using the correct word to describe the point that I wanted to make, because the word does not take away from the concept.. in that there remains a lot of lack of coordination of various governments on the international level... yeah sure some governments have more power than others, but in essence bitcoin is going to be able to build its strength in some of this current system.. which is anarchical... whether that be lack of leaders or lack of rules.. In the end , there is a lack of both on the international level and a lack of coordination regarding whatever exists.. especially when it comes to finances and the various combatting of financial systems on that international level, which creates a large number of pockets in which bitcoin can become useful... even if it may be banned in other pockets... and in the end, bitcoin is going to become stronger and stronger before anyone with any real and/or meaningful power is going to be able to do anything about either bringing it down or keeping it down.

Good - so you should use Litecoin for that then as no-one else actually cares about what you want or think here.

(a simple solution for a simpleton such as yourself)

I simply want a way to "vote for" my vision.
if my view gains >51% THEN impose it on everyone else. 
to me decentralization at 1 level higher than individuals is fine...
i'm ok with only 1000's of businesses running nodes, so naturally i'm not ok with holding back capacity simply to keep nodes in individuals reach.
in my view bitcoin should not be about making a payment system which is censorship resistance or anything like that, its simply about making a payment system which is decentralized and digital, if all the node agree to block payments to known terrorist bitcoin address or some shit, i'm OK with that.
yes i understand this notion is very much against the majority of bitcoiners values, i am an extremist in my views, and they are uneducated views, but hey that doesn't stop me from having an opinion.
BUT, i respect the majority's will to keep bitcoin as decentralized as possible, even if i strongly disagree, for the simply fact that i realize that my small opinion is worthless when compared to the opinion of the majority.
i'm not american so i can't vote for Trump but i would if i could.
he had me at WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL!
i think the idea of building a wall is nuts but it made me lol so i vote for him!

hahahahaha i'm not being very truthful or considerate in this post, just trolled the shit out of this post.
TL;DR; Trollololololol

no. i don't think thats useful or practical.

maybe i rent movies often, maybe i want to open a channel rent movies and settle every so often.

that makes more sense... but meh, i'm not sure i prefer the idea of making many many small payments Vs one large payment at the end of the month....

Okkaaaaaaaaay

So, you want to impose your vision on everyone else, and you don't care if the decentralised network is threatened? You need to get your shit straight, that's disgracefully anathema to everything Bitcoin is supposed to be about.


Adamstgbit: Freedom for me (to be a "nut case troll"), everyone else can go screw themselves. Voting for Trump, too?  

i'm a nut case troll.
consider this
"running a BU node is the only way i have of voting for for feathers i like"
and
" I dont care about individuals not being able to run a node "
clearly i dont have a solid / consistent mindset.

No, I said "continue thinking", not "stop when it's most convenient to your present intellect". To understand new concepts, intellectual development is required, by definition.

You're either totally lazy, the most accomplished troll on Bitcointalk, or (my preferred possibility), the biggest troll without even intending to be so. Because your inane, non-sensical ramblings are almost as annoying as the "We've been Franked" character.

and here i am sharing my thoughts and discussing.

thats like saying why vote for the green party thats just throwing away a vote.
I'm not adopting BU in hopes of hard forking bitcoin, i am adopting BU because it aligns best with my opinions, and running a node is the only way i can let that opinion be felt by the network.
I want to see more nodes adopts things like thinblocks and so I feel its only fitting i adopt it myself.
also i want core to lose its dictator status, i want to see the opinions of other devs considered and respected. i'm fine with BU never able to convince miners to HF to unlimited Blockspace, but i'm not fine with that option not being an option simple because one group of devs dismiss it and miners only listen to 1 group of devs.
What i see right now is that miners are afraid of a "change in government" this is the primary reason why XT and Classic failed to gain their support. its not a change of government i want, its a change in governance. if that makes any sense    
so i do everything i can to make that happen, run a BU node and chat about it.

We all have that problem sometimes Adam, but instead of assuming that things I cannot conceive are impossible, I continue to think when I reach such an impasse. So, keep thinking.

It is like you have been misled or brainwashed into the exact opposite in every respect to what LN is and how it is supposed to work. What you are describing is how many old payment channels worked and were designed.

With the LN individuals won't have to think differently or perform "100's" of payments to perform a tx. The UI will eventually be designed so it is all seamless and integrated. A User will simply make a payment exactly how they do now and the wallet and protocol will take care of all the security , multisig/CLTV, and routing through channels to find liquidity behind the UX.

The only difference is the UX will likely improve where it is now , TX will be cheaper, Much higher throughput, instant confirmations, and better fungibility with the ability to add privacy channels which automatically mix coins.

Simple case where this is useful - you want something translated and the translator charges per sentence (or per paragraph).

You open a channel and pay (not settle) per sentence (or paragraph) - if you think the translation is rubbish you close the channel otherwise you keep going until you have as much translation as the other person wants to provide.

You don't think that is useful?

(of course some sort of reputation system would also be helpful but this is a very simple and trustless way to obtain a service from an individual)