Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 4. (Read 157066 times)
If Chinese miners are really out of patience with Core delays the only way you will see it is a drastic increase in Classic nodes in July after the halving. Then Core either forks or the miners will do it for them with Classic. If this is a game of chicken I bet the core devs blink first and decide to hard fork to 2 MB. No one likes to have power taken away from them.
Oh but you aren't being a dick, are you, Fatman?
So, any progress on getting on wavelength with the miners or do we have to start a Core #REKT thread soon.
@Gmaxwell
Have you considered opening dialogue instead of being a dick all the time? I understand many people think you're right in the technical bits, but that's not worth much if people turn to other solutions just because they hate your guts.
Like it or not, people listen to you. It would mean a lot if you were a bit more constructive in these matters.
That you help show that your solutions tackle the issues of concern in a satisfactory way.
In short: Grow the fuck up
(Oh, and did I mention "Don't be a dick"? Well... don't be a dick.)
@Gmaxwell
Have you considered opening dialogue instead of being a dick all the time? I understand many people think you're right in the technical bits, but that's not worth much if people turn to other solutions just because they hate your guts.
Like it or not, people listen to you. It would mean a lot if you were a bit more constructive in these matters.
That you help show that your solutions tackle the issues of concern in a satisfactory way.
In short: Grow the fuck up
(Oh, and did I mention "Don't be a dick"? Well... don't be a dick.)
Why, with months of opportunity, hasn't the public testing of Segwit been successfully attacked or exploited by any interested party? (let alone those Core detractors who claim they have coding talent)
One possible reason is that the impact of using such an exploit when it has been mass adopted, can be far more beneficial for the attacker and far more damaging for bitcoin itself, compared to a testnet exploit scenario.
If I were a hacker, I would use any testnet period not to report bugs, but to withhold them and then either sell the exploits or front-run the market by shorting the coin prior to actually exploiting the bug.
Without serious bug bounties, I don't think there's enough incentive to actually report serious bugs.
among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant.
What are you talking about?Re altcoins, they're welcome to take our open code, but most altcoins don't have active development teams... and most of them are based on seriously outdated Bitcoin Core codebases and have serious bugs (either ones we fixed long ago-- or ones they added themselves). Considering that no one has generally exploited them suggests they're not very useful test points.
And what does any of this have to do with classic other than classic being seriously out of date?
Quote
Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.
You do? Oh. So perhaps you can tell me who is funding classic developers Zander and Gavin?Great summary of some of your earlier technical points concerning the failure and/or refusal of either classic to update their code and similar happenings with a lot of these various alts that are neither updating their code nor even holding enough value in order that some serious attacker would want to attack them.
So, sure, in that regard, as you assert, these various alts are not going to be decent testing grounds for something that is seriously being considered for implementation in bitcoin in part based on their lack of updated code, lack of value and lack of ongoing attention and development.
In that regard, Bitcoin has a whole hell-of-a lot more at stake in the event of some kind of an attack were to take place and more likely to get attention for an attack because bitcoin has a relatively high and liquid value, and so bitcoin is more likely to be a lot more real world when it comes to having a decent testing ground once it goes live and attention to the coding issues and potential vulnerabilities before the code actually goes live.
It's being tested on the Elements Alpha sidechain for over 12 months, segnet for 6 months and now on testnet3 for the last 7 weeks ... so what kind of altcoin did you have in mind specifically that would be needed in addition to these?
Preferably one containing and transferring enough value to be worth attacking.
MAJOR CONTRADICTION ALERT
If that's true, how is that people like you have used nothing but words to attack Segwit, then? You could've used the coding geniuses behind your preferred route for Bitcoin development to demonstrate how fragile Segwit is on the network.
Why, with months of opportunity, hasn't the public testing of Segwit been successfully attacked or exploited by any interested party? (let alone those Core detractors who claim they have coding talent)
oh lauda.. i have seen you say the words "immutable" several times this last fortnight.
i know its your buzzword of the week .. but here is a lesson
bitcoin is not immutable.
bitcoin does change and will change. you are actually in favour of having many changes without the need of user consensus. you are actually in favour of letting coders bribe users and blackmail miners to ensure bitcoin changes.
its time you realise and accept that..
bitcoin is not immutable.. only bitcoins archived data((past tense)blockchain data) is immutable,
so try to only use your weekly catchphrases and buzzwords in the context of what they actually mean..
EG the 7 years of archival data(past tense) is immutable. but bitcoins rules are mutable, and the live network of bitcoins blockchain as a whole changes ~6 times every hour due to new data being added.
i think you need to relax the usage of the word immutable unless your talking past tense about the archived blockchain data
oh and it may be worth only saying immutable in regards to blocks that are atleast a few confirms deep or older, due to the whole orphan risk..
i know its your buzzword of the week .. but here is a lesson
bitcoin is not immutable.
bitcoin does change and will change. you are actually in favour of having many changes without the need of user consensus. you are actually in favour of letting coders bribe users and blackmail miners to ensure bitcoin changes.
its time you realise and accept that..
bitcoin is not immutable.. only bitcoins archived data((past tense)blockchain data) is immutable,
so try to only use your weekly catchphrases and buzzwords in the context of what they actually mean..
EG the 7 years of archival data(past tense) is immutable. but bitcoins rules are mutable, and the live network of bitcoins blockchain as a whole changes ~6 times every hour due to new data being added.
i think you need to relax the usage of the word immutable unless your talking past tense about the archived blockchain data
oh and it may be worth only saying immutable in regards to blocks that are atleast a few confirms deep or older, due to the whole orphan risk..
among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant.
What are you talking about?You do? Oh. So perhaps you can tell me who is funding classic developers Zander and Gavin?
In the eyes of the "anti-Core" 'group', as long as they're not part of Blockstream they are fine. 
Predictably dishonest people are predictable dishonest.
This version numbering is truly dishonest.Voluntary and decentralized non geographically bound governance
Exactly. Decentralization, censorship resistance, immutability and such are the values that need to be kept in place.Why does this thread still even exist? 
I assume to spread the word of their misdoings and correct false information.
I suppose we bought into different monetary systems then, since my understanding going into it was different. I think that Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus. I actually perceive Bitcoin as being the evolution of governance. Voluntary and decentralized non geographically bound governance, the evolution of the modern democracy if you will into something better and superior Bitcoin is not freedom, there are rules.. Bitcoin is trust. Or trustlessness for that matter.So whatever blockstream or anyone says, in Bitcoin I trust.
I also wonder, since they already released a "0.12.1" which was, if anything, an anti-0.12.1 (ripped out warnings related to the 0.12.1 features it lacked!)-- are they going to call their kludge port 0.13 and claim to be leaders in Bitcoin innovation-- while lacking the half year of development from dozens of people and dozens of features that will be in the real 0.13?
Why do things by half measures? Behold, Bitcoin Classic 1.1.0! Predictably dishonest people are predictable dishonest.
among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant.
What are you talking about?Re altcoins, they're welcome to take our open code, but most altcoins don't have active development teams... and most of them are based on seriously outdated Bitcoin Core codebases and have serious bugs (either ones we fixed long ago-- or ones they added themselves). Considering that no one has generally exploited them suggests they're not very useful test points.
And what does any of this have to do with classic other than classic being seriously out of date?
Quote
Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.
You do? Oh. So perhaps you can tell me who is funding classic developers Zander and Gavin? I know, sure SegWit comes bundled with a bunch of other changes among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant. No need to trust me but it's way more complicated that you alluding too.
We are talking about very important changes here that will be of benefit in the future. Segwit is by no means a simple solution, but it is far from being as complex as r/btc people and/or Classic supporters make it out to be. They've started spamming that Segwit is Bitcoin's DAO. This is how desperate and stupid they truly are. I don't see any shilling campaigns maybe you can enlighten us? I do see a bunch of digital influences paid by huge corporate sponsors to create FUD around the dangers of bigger blocks.
The campaign has been going on for months. It is quite obvious once you get a hang of it.I'm glad to see there is no resistance to altcoins implementing Segwit, I suggest Core got on that and do some real world testing before messing with Bitcoin implementation, what do you think about deploying it on the Litecoin network? it shares a lot of fundamentals with bitcoin.
The Bitcoin Core code is open-source anyways. However, as I've already said, I expect people to attack the Core developers in that section and blame 'Blockstream' for stalling. 
From what I hear popescu is a coder and has lots of money due to high stake in BTC. Why isn't he coding or funding an alternative client to core, if he thinks core is bullshit/shitsoup? That would be more productive than complaining, surely.
(I'm cautious about new code as well - it might introduce issues - and I don't like the feeling of "let's pray it'll work out ok").
(I'm cautious about new code as well - it might introduce issues - and I don't like the feeling of "let's pray it'll work out ok").
http://thebitcoin.foundation/index.html
In a stunning coincidence, segwit was merged just in time for the On-chain Scaling conference's first day.
I think the exact time might have been when Peter_R's amateur comedy routine started.
Haven't seen someone get REKT that bad since Sansa emerged as the Hammer of Winterfell.
I think the exact time might have been when Peter_R's amateur comedy routine started.
Haven't seen someone get REKT that bad since Sansa emerged as the Hammer of Winterfell.
From what I hear popescu is a coder and has lots of money due to high stake in BTC. Why isn't he coding or funding an alternative client to core, if he thinks core is bullshit/shitsoup? That would be more productive than complaining, surely.
(I'm cautious about new code as well - it might introduce issues - and I don't like the feeling of "let's pray it'll work out ok").
(I'm cautious about new code as well - it might introduce issues - and I don't like the feeling of "let's pray it'll work out ok").
Luke-Jr ventures out to humbly hold court with this guy for advice on the 2017 HF, really guise?
Quote
http://btcbase.org/log/
thestringpuller: cause there is no way TRB will ever enforce segwit, so there is no way it can ever truly verify a segwit output was spent "legitimately"
mircea_popescu: thestringpuller the derp in question can just spend again normally and his coins will be visible.
mircea_popescu: trb has no notion of "coin history". nor should it. because taint is not a thing.
thestringpuller: gotcha. just never have anyone spend to your from a fake address.
mircea_popescu: moreover, there ISNT, in general, and for very good reasons, a way to verify segwit crapolade.
mircea_popescu: which is what it aims to be, a sort of "let's dao bitcoin"
thestringpuller: TMSR rule of thumb: "Never accept non standard transactions" ?
mircea_popescu: pretty much.
thestringpuller: gotcha. thanks for clarity. mod6 ^^^ nvm question has been answered.
mircea_popescu: but this said, yes it is deeply irresponsible for anyone to use prb clients. this doesn't just mean 13, or 12, or 10. ANY of them.
mircea_popescu: they keep adding shit, but it's been shitsoup for years now.
mod6: thestringpuller: np.
mod6: if we needed to add code everytime these gnomes comeup with a new crapolade, that's all we'd ever be doing.
thestringpuller: i just don't want them to add something in a "fork" that allows TMSR to get scammed.
thestringpuller: but I think at that point BTC is dead
mircea_popescu: and in other lulz, ro chicks trying hard :http://fabulousmuses.net/2016/06/marina-yachting-summer-trends.html
mircea_popescu: mod6 the main concern is that their bullshit will "accidentally" start fabricating coins.
mircea_popescu: nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name.
BingoBoingo: thestringpuller: From what I understand Segwit to a normal 1xxx adress requires a signature in the blockchain so when segwit stops being miner enforced the recieved transaction would still be, even though it came from freemoneyshitsoup.
thestringpuller: BingoBoingo: AHA!
mircea_popescu: yeah, except the next stop is for shitsoup to put out more coins than it got in.
thestringpuller: elaborate?
mircea_popescu: you been watching the dao thing ?
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name. << totally agree.
mircea_popescu: segwit is EXACTLY "dao for bitcoin".
thestringpuller: cause there is no way TRB will ever enforce segwit, so there is no way it can ever truly verify a segwit output was spent "legitimately"
mircea_popescu: thestringpuller the derp in question can just spend again normally and his coins will be visible.
mircea_popescu: trb has no notion of "coin history". nor should it. because taint is not a thing.
thestringpuller: gotcha. just never have anyone spend to your from a fake address.
mircea_popescu: moreover, there ISNT, in general, and for very good reasons, a way to verify segwit crapolade.
mircea_popescu: which is what it aims to be, a sort of "let's dao bitcoin"
thestringpuller: TMSR rule of thumb: "Never accept non standard transactions" ?
mircea_popescu: pretty much.
thestringpuller: gotcha. thanks for clarity. mod6 ^^^ nvm question has been answered.
mircea_popescu: but this said, yes it is deeply irresponsible for anyone to use prb clients. this doesn't just mean 13, or 12, or 10. ANY of them.
mircea_popescu: they keep adding shit, but it's been shitsoup for years now.
mod6: thestringpuller: np.
mod6: if we needed to add code everytime these gnomes comeup with a new crapolade, that's all we'd ever be doing.
thestringpuller: i just don't want them to add something in a "fork" that allows TMSR to get scammed.
thestringpuller: but I think at that point BTC is dead
mircea_popescu: and in other lulz, ro chicks trying hard :http://fabulousmuses.net/2016/06/marina-yachting-summer-trends.html
mircea_popescu: mod6 the main concern is that their bullshit will "accidentally" start fabricating coins.
mircea_popescu: nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name.
BingoBoingo: thestringpuller: From what I understand Segwit to a normal 1xxx adress requires a signature in the blockchain so when segwit stops being miner enforced the recieved transaction would still be, even though it came from freemoneyshitsoup.
thestringpuller: BingoBoingo: AHA!
mircea_popescu: yeah, except the next stop is for shitsoup to put out more coins than it got in.
thestringpuller: elaborate?
mircea_popescu: you been watching the dao thing ?
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name. << totally agree.
mircea_popescu: segwit is EXACTLY "dao for bitcoin".
Who ensures that LN does not become bitcoins DAO like experience?
That's not really relevant here. Let's all stop any advanced development because an incompetent team failed with their pump & dump coin? I think not. Peer reviews and extensive testing 'ensure' that. Although one can never be 100% sure.It's a totally relevant! Rather than test LN and its base code SegWit, (bitcoin's DAO), in the real world befor deploying it on a $10B network, why shouldn't SegWit be deployed and tested in the real world on an altcoin before being implemented in Bitcoin?
It's being tested on the Elements Alpha sidechain for over 12 months, segnet for 6 months and now on testnet3 for the last 7 weeks ... so what kind of altcoin did you have in mind specifically that would be needed in addition to these?
Preferably one containing and transferring enough value to be worth attacking.
Roger Ver is knee deep in Ethers. Don't pretend that place isn't what it is.
Only the knees eh?
I had a feeling it was a little deeper.
Who ensures that LN does not become bitcoins DAO like experience?
That's not really relevant here. Let's all stop any advanced development because an incompetent team failed with their pump & dump coin? I think not. Peer reviews and extensive testing 'ensure' that. Although one can never be 100% sure.It's a totally relevant! Rather than test LN and its base code SegWit, (bitcoin's DAO), in the real world befor deploying it on a $10B network, why shouldn't SegWit be deployed and tested in the real world on an altcoin before being implemented in Bitcoin?
It's being tested on the Elements Alpha sidechain for over 12 months, segnet for 6 months and now on testnet3 for the last 7 weeks ... so what kind of altcoin did you have in mind specifically that would be needed in addition to these?
Troll harder, you might get that Goldman Sachs share option you were promised
LOL way to deflect attention but honestly, Goldman Sachs, AXA, PwC, Innovation Endeavors whats the difference - you're the one backing the changes to Bitcoin protocol funded by existing elite.
FYI a shill is paid to push a biased opinion, it is the antithesis of a bitcoin investment who wants to maximize the return on their bitcoin investment. Full disclosure I'm invested in the successful deployment and deployment of the Bitcoin network for the benefit of all users without bias.
Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.
Jump to: